Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITION (BASIC PETROL RATION)

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Mr. Speaker, I beg to present a Petition addressed to this House by the owners and users of private motor cars and motor cycles protesting against the abolition of the basic petrol ration and asking for its restoration. This Petition is signed by 800,000 owners and users. Their addresses and occupations, which they have written against their names on the Petition sheet, show that the protest comes from all parts of Great Britain and from citizens of every conceivable kind of occupation. This Petition is a continuation of the Petition of the Standing Joint Committee of the Royal Automobile Club, the Automobile Association and the Royal Scottish Automobile Club. That Petition was presented to this House on 29th October and it had 1,127,000 signatures. The two Petitions combined, therefore, have a grand total of 1,927,000 signatures.
The Prayer which I now present reads as follows:
We therefore humbly pray that, if in the opinion of your honourable House economies in the use of petrol by private motor vehicles are essential to the wellbeing of the country, the provision of the basic petrol ration be restored forthwith, but as a temporary expedient on the basis of a 50 per cent. reduction in the scale of allowances which hitherto existed and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
Petition to lie upon the Table.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

COATBRIDGE BURGH EXTENSION, &C., ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Coatbridge Burgh Extension, &c.," presented by Mr. Woodburn; and ordered (under Section 7

of the Act) to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 25.]

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: On a point of Order. May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker. Through no fault of my own, Questions No. 41 and No. 46 are identical and are addressed to different Ministers. Can you tell me which Minister is going to reply and whether their answers are likely to coincide?

Mr. Speaker: I regret that there was an error in the printing, for which I apologise. I confess I do not know which Minister will answer which Question, but I take it that the first one will be answered and the other one will not be called.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Wage Increases (Cost)

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Postmaster-General if he will give details of the recent rise in wages of Post Office workers; and what is the total annual cost.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Wilfred Paling): I am sending to the hon. Member the details for which he asks. The total additional annual cost of the revised scales is estimated to be slightly over £5,000,000.

Sir W. Smithers: In view of the fact that the Government have just passed through this House a Finance Bill to stop inflation, will the Postmaster-General and other Ministers realise that the mere handing out of pieces of paper does no good to the Post Office workers or to the public, and only accentuates the vicious spiral?

Mr. Speaker: That is another question.

Mr. Molson: Has the Postmaster-General any idea of carrying out the policy expressed in paragraph 28 of the Economic Survey for 1947, which says:
Any further general increase in wages and profits must be accompanied by a corresponding increase in production?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Before my right hon. Friend replies, will he say if it is


not the fact that these increases—and, indeed, much more substantial increases—are long overdue if the Post Office workers are to be provided with a reasonable standard of living? Is it not a fact that if he had not conceded part of the claims of the workers my right hon. Friend would have found some difficulty in retaining his staff, and recruiting new entrants into the various grades?

Mr. William Shepherd: Is it not a fact that despite the increase of salaries and the fact that the present staff is quite adequate for the needs of the Post Office, the postal service today is worse than it has ever been?

Mr. Paling: Emphatically not. I thought there were sufficiently good reasons for giving these increases.

Sir W. Smithers: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter again on the Adjournment at the first opportunity.

Savings Department

Mr. Granville Sharp: asked the Postmaster-General what recent investigations have been made into the organisation and methods employed in the Post Office Savings Department; what recommendations have been made; and to what extent they are now being implemented.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: If my hon. Friend has in mind investigations by organisation and methods officers, the answer is that they have examined only limited problems and have not yet made any survey of the whole Department. A full scale inquiry by organisation and methods officers into the Savings Bank side of the work is, however, about to start. Investigations of this nature are, of course, constantly proceeding as part of the normal responsibility of the Head of the Department, and an independent inquiry was made in 1942. I fully recognise the value of periodical investigations, which will be undertaken as time and staff permit, but I must emphasise that the Savings Department has carried out with great success the formidable problem of adapting itself to meet an enormous expansion of work in conditions of shortage of staff and of accommodation which have imposed severe limits upon the possibilities of altering processes in detail. The inquiry now starting will be largely directed to examining whether further mechanisation or a change in the present system is desirable.

Mr. Sharp: If my right hon. Friend is not satisfied that he has a sufficient number of qualified people on his staff to do this work, will he consider asking the Organisation and Methods division of the Treasury to help him with it?

Mr. Paling: We have a qualified staff for this work and they are doing it.

Postmark

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will reinstate the use of the present lover's knot postmark at least until the end of the approaching festive season.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: No, Sir.

Mr. McAdam: Will not my right hon. Friend reconsider his decision with a view to enabling the hon. Member to find a lover?

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the introduction in substitution for this of the design of balls and chains in order to symbolise Government policy?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Is this Question an indication that the hon. bachelor, the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge), has now honourable intentions?

Forces' Air Mail Letters

Mr. Keeling: asked the Postmaster-General how his receipts per cwt. of Forces' air letters at 2½d. per letter compare with his receipts per cwt. of air mail despatched at ordinary rates to the same countries; and whether he will give an assurance that Forces' air letters will be despatched by all lines used for ordinary air mail, and with equal priority.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: The gross postage on a given weight of lightweight Forces' letters at 2½d. per letter exceeds that for the same weight of ordinary air mail letters for the Forces, which I assume the hon. Member has in mind, but, owing to their greater number the Post Office handling costs per cwt. are higher in the case of lightweight Forces' letters. After deduction of these costs, the net revenue available to meet air conveyance charges is about the same in either case. No distinction as regards priority of despatch is made


between the two classes of correspondence, and I can readily give the assurance sought by the hon. Member.

Mr. Keeling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of the troops think that Forces' letters are not sent by foreign aircraft even when they would give earlier delivery? Do I understand him to say that if that ever was so it is no longer true?

Mr. Paling: If they do think that, then I think that this Question and answer may correct them.

Mr. Hector Hughes: In view of the importance of facilitating correspondence between our people in the Forces abroad and their homes here, will my right hon. Friend consider offering them further reduced rates?

Mr. Paling: We have recently gone into that matter, and I think that this is all we can do at the moment.

Cable Laying Ship "Monarch" (Minister's Trip)

Mr. Erroll: asked the Postmaster-General if he will make a statement to the House on his recent trip with the cable laying ship "Monarch."

Mr. Wilfred Paling: I am grateful for an opportunity to mention this little known Post Office service. His Majesty's Telegraph Ship "Monarch" was first commissioned last year. She is the largest of the Post Office fleet of four cable ships; indeed, the largest cable ship in the world, equipped for laying cables and maintaining them in all waters. The laying by "Monarch" of the new Anglo-Dutch No. 6 cable offered a unique opportunity of witnessing at first-hand the work and working conditions on a cable ship. The cable itself is of very modern design, and will provide 84 telephone circuits from this country to Holland, and in a year or two, to all the Scandinavian countries. "Monarch" is the only ship capable of laying the 80 odd miles in one piece.
In spite of a considerable storm, the laying of the cable was completed successfully in five days. Great credit is, I think, Sir, due to the Captain and ship's company, who combined skilful seamanship and sound technical training so as to lay an unfamiliar type of cable, less easy to handle than the norm, in spite of adverse

weather. Great credit is also due to the skill and enterprise of the British firm—Messrs. Submarine Cables Ltd.—who designed and produced the cable itself—an advanced piece of intricate scientific craftsmanship; I am glad to say that they were represented on board "Monarch." Representatives of the Dutch and Danish administrations where there too, and expressed great satisfaction at the success of the operation.

Official Paid Envelope

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: asked the Postmaster-General what restrictions he places on the use of official paid envelopes by nationalised undertakings and associated companies for their ordinary postal correspondence; what steps are taken by his Department to verify the suitability of a firm to make use of postal services at the public expense; and, in particular, if the National Screen Service, Ltd., comes under the heading of a nationalised or an associated company which is entitled by his regulations to use official paid postal service for the distribution of their films.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: Official paid envelopes and labels are supplied only to Government Departments under regulations made by the Treasury which prescribe safeguards for their proper use. I understand that National Screen Service, Ltd., distribute films for certain Government Departments, and for that purpose they are supplied by the Departments concerned with specially printed or partially printed labels bearing the "Official Paid" design.

Mr. Cooper: If this is a private company, is this concession justified?

Mr. Paling: I said that this company are distributing films for certain Government Departments. We provide labels for them.

Mr. Keeling: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any case on record in which an unstamped letter bearing the letters "O.H.M.S." written in ink has been returned by any Government Department with a request for payment of postage?

Mr. Paling: I do not know. If the hon. Gentleman knows of such a case, perhaps, he will let me know.

Mr. Keeling: Has any such letter ever been returned?

Stamps (Special Issues)

Mr. Attewell: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is now in a position to make a statement on special issues of postage stamps in 1948.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: I have much pleasure in informing the House that, with His Majesty's gracious assent, I propose to authorise an issue of special stamps on 26th April, 1948, to commemorate the Silver Wedding of Their Majesties the King and Queen. I propose also to issue special postage stamps on the occasion of the opening of the Olympic Games in July, 1948, and in May, 1948, on the anniversary of the liberation of the Channel Islands from German occupation.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Will the designs of these stamps be submitted in ample time for the Royal Fine Art Commission to consider them, so that this country can have the best?

Mr. Paling: Yes, and in one case that has already been done.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the right hon. Gentleman seriously consider producing a stamp to express recognition of the high production of the miners and steelworkers of this country, which is of the very greatest importance to the economy of this country—much more than the others?

Mr. Paling: I do not know about a stamp, but I deeply appreciate the efforts those people are making.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Will my right hon. Friend say if there is any tie up with the Dominions, which would be desirable, so that we may keep in step with them—as, for instance, in connection with the first issue that he mentioned?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Millom Range, Cumberland (Inquiry)

Mr. Henry Strauss: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will give an assurance that he will not acquire or use the six miles stretch of land officially described as the Millom Range, Cumberland, or any part thereof, without a public inquiry.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Arthur Henderson): Our proposed use of land at Millom is being considered by the Services Land Requirements Committee. If, after investigation, there appear to be substantial objections outstanding, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning will arrange an inquiry. The length of foreshore involved in our proposals is one and a half miles, to which access would be permitted whenever the range was not in use.

Mr. Strauss: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say when he thinks this proposal will come before the committee, because the local planning authorities are hampered until they have knowledge; and does he realise how supremely valuable this piece of coast is, and how much concerned the local authorities and the amenity societies are?

Mr. Henderson: Yes, Sir. I quite appreciate the importance mentioned in the second part of the supplementary question. As regards the first part, the committee are now considering these aspects of the problem.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that in the past, and presumably normally, this committee take ten months to report on these matters; and can he do anything to speed it up?

Mr. Henderson: I will look into that.

Untraced Missing Personnel

Mr. Turton: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many officers and men of the R.A.F. who were reported as missing or prisoners of war, and are believed to have been in Germany or Poland remain untraced; and what steps are now being taken to search for them.

Mr. Henderson: About 9,000 members of the R.A.F. who were reported missing in Europe remain untraced. Most of these were lost over North-West Europe, including Germany and Poland, but it is not possible to say how many were lost in each country. It is estimated that a further 12,000 were lost over the sea, and it is unlikely that positive evidence of their fate will now be discovered. R.A.F. Missing Research Units are still at work in Germany and other European countries, but to my regret permission to


go into Poland has not yet been obtained. In the last six months these units have accounted for nearly 2,000 officers and men whose deaths could previously only be presumed; altogether, about 18,000 have now been traced. All members of the R.A.F. who were posted as prisoners of war have been traced, with two exceptions.

Mr. Turton: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what steps he is taking to persuade the Polish Government to allow research units to enter Poland?

Mr. Henderson: I should prefer that question to be put down on the Order Paper.

Mr. Eden: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that, towards the conclusion of the war we made very full reciprocal agreements with all our Allies to help them to trace their missing, in return for which they would help us to trace our missing? I think the House would feel it indefensible that an Ally should refuse us this very reasonable concession.

Mr. Molson: Is Poland the only country which refuses to allow these units to penetrate into its territory?

Mr. Henderson: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Parkin: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is a Norwegian War Graves Commission working in Poland; and, therefore, ought there to be any insuperable objection to one going from our country?

Mr. Henderson: The objection is not coming from this end.

Pilot Cadets (Cancelled Passage)

Colonel Wheatley: asked the Secretary of State for Air why the sailing of a party of pilot cadets for South Africa on s.s. "Stirling Castle" on 4th December was cancelled on 28th November, after the cadets had drawn their tropical kit, etc., on 25th November.

Mr. A. Henderson: My Department received a report from the R.A.F. authorities in Southern Rhodesia on 26th November proposing a re-arrangement of the R.A.F. Training Schools there. In order to carry out this re-arrangement, the sailing of the next contingent of cadets had to be postponed.

Colonel Wheatley: Does the Minister agree that, in order to encourage young officers instead of disappointing them, it would have been as well to have told them the reason why their departure was delayed?

Mr. Henderson: I was not aware that they had not been told.

Airfield, Bolt Head (Agricultural Land)

Brigadier Rayner: asked the Secretary of State for Air when the airfield at Bolt Head, South Devon, will he made available for agricultural use.

Mr. A. Henderson: This airfield was derequisitioned 18 months ago, since when the County Agricultural Executive Committee have been restoring the land for farming. Complete restoration is, however, proving more difficult than was expected, and I am therefore, consulting my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture on what further work should be put in hand.

Brigadier Rayner: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the case of this rich agricultural land, 300 acres in extent, has been like a shuttlecock flying between his Ministry, the Ministry of Works and the Ministry of Agriculture for the last 18 months; that buildings are still on the aerodrome; that the ditches are still open; and, particularly, that some wire mesh tracking, which was premised to local owner-occupiers to replace their fences, has been disposed of elsewhere; and does he realise that if this sort of thing goes on everywhere the country will starve?

Mr. Henderson: I am not aware that it is going on everywhere. As regards this particular area being a shuttlecock between various Departments, I hope that as a result of my consultations that situation will end.

Training Headquarters, Kilmarnock (Heating Arrangements)

Mr. William Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he is aware that the work of Nos. 327 and 1327, Kilmarnock and District Squadrons, Air Training Corps, is being seriously handicapped by lack of heating facilities in their headquarters; and will he take steps to provide the necessary radiators from Air Ministry stores.

Mr. A. Henderson: My Department have no stocks of the special type of radiator which the Kilmarnock Committee have asked for, but consideration is being given to what alternative heating arrangements can best be made.

Trainee Assistant Photographer (Candidates)

Commander Noble: asked the Secretary of State for Air why candidates for trainee assistant photographer are asked their political views.

Mr. A. Henderson: I am not aware that candidates are asked for their political views.

Commander Noble: If I send the Minister a letter which I have just received, which gives a rather different view, will he look into it?

Mr. Henderson: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Heathrow

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation how many aircraft have been diverted from Heathrow to Prestwick on account of weather conditions during November.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): None, Sir, but two bound for London Airport proceeded direct to Prestwick in view of the general weather situation.

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether the cuts in capital expenditure will affect the work in progress at Heathrow.

Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir. I would refer the hon. Member to the recently published White Paper on Capital Investment.

Mr. Shepherd: When is it expected to complete the new runway programme at Heathrow?

Mr. Lindgren: It was intended to complete it towards the end of 1950. This curtailment in labour force will perhaps delay it till 1952.

Stratocruisers (Deliveries)

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil

Aviation whether it is intended to take delivery of the Stratocruisers in view of the restrictions on foreign travel; when deliveries are now expected to take place; and whether he is satisfied that these planes can be profitably operated.

Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir. Deliveries of these aircraft are expected to begin in August, 1948. The answer to the last part of the Question is also, "Yes, Sir."

Mr. Shepherd: How can the Parliamentary Secretary make that reply in view of the fact that on the East-bound run the existing Constellations are coming back, in the main, practically empty; and will he not agree that the purchase of these aircraft is yet another great blunder which his Ministry have committed?

Mr. Lindgren: Most certainly not. The present operation of the Constellations on the North Atlantic service is an economic service, in so far as the relation between the load factor and the operating costs will make it economic.

Mr. Shepherd: Is the Parliamentary Secretary saying that it would have been in the national interests not to have bought Constellations instead of Stratocruisers?

Mr. Lindgren: I am saying that at the moment we have no British aircraft which could have been economic in relation to the operating costs and load factor.

Mr. Shepherd: I agree.

Mr. Lindgren: These aircraft are economic and, therefore, this is the most profitable course to adopt.

Mr. Leslie Hale: In those circumstances, would it not be a good idea to try the Tudor on the North Atlantic run, for which it was built and which it is fit to fly?

Mr. Lindgren: It has been proved unsatisfactory for the North Atlantic, and, therefore, it would be unwise to consider introducing it into service.

International Aeradio Limited

Mr. Cooper: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation the cost to the public for the capital subscribed by the Department, together with the Airways Corporations, for the formation of International Aeradio; what is the amount subscribed by each


organisation concerned; why other European air transport concerns have refused to loin International Aeradio; and what were the terms offered to these air lines from the point of view of their financial contribution and the participation in management.

Mr. Lindgren: None of the capital of International Aeradio Limited will be subscribed directly from public funds. The three Airways Corporations have agreed to contribute the major portion of the present authorised capital of £250,000, but the amount to be subscribed by each organisation has not yet been settled. The remaining questions are matters for the board of the company.

Mr. Cooper: In view of the vast amount of public money which goes to the Corporation's support, does the Parliamentary Secretary not consider it would be his direct responsibility to watch the development of International Aeradio Limited; and does he consider the present Board is suitably constituted with people of sufficient experience, and of an international character, which is likely to cause this international organisation to develop in the quickest and most useful way?

Mr. Lindgren: The answer to the latter part of the supplementary question is "Yes, Sir." The first part concerns matters which are for the board, but the Ministry keeps in touch with them because it is desired that, these being common services, there should be an international organisation to administer them.

Mr. Cooper: Would the Parliamentary Secretary agree that if seats on the board were offered to international transport organisations, it might assist materially to the more rapid development of this organisation?

Mr. Lindgren: That will be done as and when capital is put forward by them, and I hope it will not be long before they are represented there.

Turnhouse Airport

Mr. Rankin: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he is satisfied that Turnhouse Airport is operationally suited to the needs of a developing air service.

Mr. Lindgren: I am satisfied that Turn-house Airport is adequate to meet the

needs of the existing service, and such future needs as are contemplated at present.

Mr. Rankin: Is it not the case that Aberdeen Airport is being adapted for the Viking, and that Turnhouse Airport will now be the only airport on the East Coast service which cannot at the moment take the Viking?

Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir, it is dictated, not by Ministry, but by the area of land available, and by the topography of the surrounding land.

Accident, Syria (Inquiry)

Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he is aware that the fact-finding inquiry on the Pan-American Airway Constellation accident at Meyadin, Syria, on 18th June, 1947, in which seven British subjects were killed, has now been published, stating that the aircraft was not provided with maps or charts of emergency landing fields, including the R.A.F. base at Habbaniya; and to what extent such information is and has been available to civilian operating companies.

Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir. The Interim Report of the Fact-Finding Committee makes no mention of the lack of maps or charts, and the final report has not yet been received. British aeronautical charts are on sale through authorised chart sellers.

Prestwick

Colonel Hutchison: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether he is aware that there exists at present at Prestwick hangar accommodation sufficient to allow the maintenance and servicing of three Constellations at Prestwick Airport; and if he will make arrangements to use these facilities.

Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir. The second part of the Question does not, therefore, arise.

Colonel Hutchison: Will the Parliamentary Secretary look into this again, since the information of those on the spot in no way agrees with what he has said?

Mr. Lindgren: I am prepared to accept my brief rather than that of the hon. and gallant Member.

Mr. Cooper: Can my hon. Friend say the date when he anticipates the Constellations will be brought to this country?

Mr. Lindgren: In the autumn of 1948.

Mr. Cooper: Will he try to speed it up a little?

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: In view of the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary's statements and opinions on Scottish aviation have been almost invariably wrong, is it not possible that he may also be wrong on this occasion?

Mr. Ross: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what is the total sum of the token payments made by the Government to Scottish Aviation, Limited, for their services at Prestwick.

Mr. Lindgren: £103,918 16s. 7d.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether that includes payments to the hotel, and whether the hotel is owned by Scottish Aviation?

Mr. Lindgren: It is owned by my Ministry, but is operated by Scottish Aviation. The figure does not include anything in regard to the hotel, the rent of which has yet to be determined.

Mr. Rankin: Does the figure relate to work which is going on in the Scottish airport in regard to refitting Dakota aircraft for sale?

Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir, that is entirely private venture.

Mr. Willis: Will the Parliamentary Secretary say when he expects a final settlement?

Mr. Lindgren: As soon as possible. The present contract allows for a continuation until 31st March, 1949, but an attempt will be made to conclude an agreement before that date for the Ministry to take over all the services.

Mr. Ross: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what feeder services exist to and from Prestwick; and what additional feeder services he proposes to introduce.

Mr. Lindgren: None, Sir.

Airfield Construction Schemes

Mr. Wilkes: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether cuts in the capital investment programme, necessitating delay in airfield construction schemes, make any distinction as regards schemes within development areas, similar to the factory-building priorities which have been retained by the Government.

Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir.

Mr. Wilkes: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware his decision means that in the North-East development area we shall not have any direct air route with the continent, especially with Scandinavia and Belgium, where Tyneside did most of the prewar trade, for at least three and, possibly, four or five years.

Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir. It is a matter of priority. Which shall be first, Jarrow tunnel and houses, or the development of the airfield?

Air Transport Advisory Council

Mr. Beswick: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation on what date was the Air Transport Advisory Council constituted; what members serve upon it; and what is their remuneration.

Mr. Lindgren: The Air Transport Advisory Council was constituted by Order in Council dated 11th June, 1947. It has the following membership:

Lord Torrington, C.B.E. (Chairman).
Sir Donald Banks, K.C.B., D.S.O., M.C.
Mr. John lire Primrose, D.L., J.P.
Air-Commodore the Hon. W. L. Runciman, O.B.E., A.F.C.
Mr. G. S. Szlumper, C.B.E., T.D.

Pending experience of the volume of work likely to devolve upon the Council, the Chairman receives remuneration at the rate of 20 guineas, and the other members of the Council at the rate of 15 guineas for each day on which the Council meets.

Mr. Beswick: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation on how many occasions the Air Transport Advisory Council has met; what matters have they considered; and on what matters have they tendered advice to the Minister.

Mr. Lindgren: Four, Sir. The Council has investigated representations made to it by a member of the public relating to air services in Scotland, and has submitted its report and recommendations to my noble Friend. Other similar representations are at present being examined by the Council.

Mr. Beswick: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that if the extent and purpose of this Advisory Council were more widely known, a good many of the questions and complaints which come to Members of Parliament and find their way on to the Order Paper, might be directed to the Council in the first place?

Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir. I hope this Question and my answer will relieve hon. Members of some of the letters they have been getting. If hon. Members will inform their constituents of this official channel, that will be one method of making it more widely known.

Foreign Airlines Lunch (Minister's Absence)

Commander Noble: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what meetings he has had during 1947 with the committee of foreign airlines' representatives in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Lindgren: None, Sir.

Commander Noble: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say why he and the Minister did not take the opportunity of such a meeting which was afforded by the luncheon at the Savoy Hotel recently?

Mr. Lindgren: Because I am a trade unionist, and I hope I shall always remember that fact.

Mr. Nicholson: Is not the hon. Member one of His Majesty's Ministers?

Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir, and there is no conflict between the two.

Earl Winterton: In order to give greater elucidation to the House, will the Parliamentary Secretary state which he places first—his duty as one of His Majesty's Ministers, or his duty as a lesser trade unionist?

Mr. Lindgren: That conflict of interest never arises.

Hon. Members: It did.

Sir Wavell Wakefield: In view of the fact that the T.U.C. did not recognise this strike, how comes it that the Minister refused to attend?

Mr. Lindgren: I am grateful to the hon. Member for that supplementary question, which enables me to say that the Trade Union Congress was not involved in my decision in any shape or form; and they took no part by giving advice, instructions, or any contact in any way.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Workers' Leaders (Exchange Visits)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the hon. Member for Ipswich may expect a reply to his letter of 25th September regarding the exchange visit of Workers' Leaders between Messrs. Ransomes & Rapier Ltd., of Ipswich and Messrs. Menck & Hambrock of Hamburg.

The Minister of State (Mr. McNeil): A reply was sent to my hon. Friend this morning.

Mr. Stokes: is my right hon. Friend aware that I have only just received his reply? Arising out of that reply, is he further aware that this has nothing to do with exchange control payments? The payments at this end will be made in sterling, and the payments to the workers at the other end will be in sterling. It will not cost any dollars. Therefore, what is the difficulty?

Mc. McNiel: I apologise if my hon. Friend has only just received his reply. As to the complexities of the exchange, I shall be glad to discuss with him any scheme he has in mind.

Sir Ronald Ross: Does the exchange include the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes)? Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the gain to this country of such a transaction?

Mr. McNeil: As my hon. Friend is an engineering worker, he would, of course, qualify.

Reparations (Silesian Territory)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at what capital


value the territory of Silesia has been taken into consideration when assessing the total of reparations to be paid.

Mr. McNeil: As the total of reparations to be paid is not assessed in terms of money, the Question does not arise.

Mr. Stokes: Has my right hon. Friend read Mr. Byrnes' book "Speaking Frankly"? Will he study it, and learn that the rateable value of property in Silesia before the war was assessed at over 11 billion dollars?

Mr. McNeil: I must repeat that the question of reparations is not tied to assessments.

B.B.C. EUROPEAN SERVICE (TREASURY GRANT)

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present rate of the Treasury grant made in respect of the European Service of the B.B.C.; and to what extent his Department is responsible for control of the policy of, and expenditure on, this Service.

Mr. McNeil: As the answer is necessarily a long one, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Major Tufton Beamish: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there is no intention of cutting down the already inadequate Treasury grant? May I have an answer? May I ask the Minister, then, whether His Majesty's Government fully appreciate the immense value of the European Service of the B.B.C.?

Mr. McNeil: I am very glad to answer the second question, because it concerns my Department. We are keenly aware of the work which has been done by this service, and of its importance to the Government and to the country.

Following is the answer:

The Treasury Grant-in-Aid, which covers the expenses of the European Service of the B.B.C., is made in respect of the Overseas Services of the B.B.C. as a whole. It is at present at the annual rate of £4,400,000. Of this approximately £400,000 represents expenditure on the European Service. The

responsibilities of the Foreign Office and the Corporation, respectively, for the policy of the Overseas Services are laid down in paragraph 5 of Clause 4 of the B.B.C. Licence and Agreement of 29th November, 1946 (Cmd. 6975), and paragraph 8 of Appendix 1 of the Seventh Report from the Select Committee on Estimates, 1946–47. The responsibility of the Foreign Office in respect of expenditure is laid down in paragraph 9 of Appendix 1 of the Seventh Report from the Select Committee on Estimates.

BRITISH EMBASSY EMPLOYEE, WARSAW (TRIAL)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the nature of the charge brought against Maria Marynowska, an employee of the British Embassy in Warsaw; and if he will publish as a White Paper the conclusions arrived at by the official of the British Embassy who was present as an observer at the trial.

Mr. McNeil: Mrs. Marynowska was charged, together with the other accused, with acting, in the period from the spring of 1946 to January, 1947, in a way which had as its object the overthrow of the Polish Government, and the specific accusations alleged are that Mrs. Marynowska arranged a meeting between underground leaders and members of His Majesty's Embassy, and also passed information from them to the Embassy. My right hon. Friend will bear in mind the suggestion made in the second part of the Question.

Sir W. Smithers: Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree, in regard to this and other trials, whatever the verdict, that while the satellite countries of Soviet Russia are not in conformity with the British system of law, he should do all he can to uphold the rights of those accused in these trials?

Mr. McNeil: The Government are represented at the trial, and we will see that all legitimate protection to servants of the Government is afforded to this woman. I should, perhaps, say that no one expects a similarity of the law as between country and country, but what we are concerned about is to see that justice, according to the law of the country, is discharged.

U.N.O. (BRITISH DELEGATION, VOTING)

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) the number of times the British delegation to the United Nations Assembly voted with the United States and the number of times with the U.S.S.R. during the last two years;
(2) how many times the British representative on the Security Council has voted with the U.S.A. in support of or against proposals and how many times with the U.S.S.R. during the last two years.

Mr. McNeil: It would be impossible to give an accurate answer to either of these Questions. In the period to which the honourable Member refers the number of occasions on which the United Nations General Assembly, its Committees and Sub-Committees have voted, must amount to many thousands; and the number of occasions on which the Security Council has voted, to many hundreds. Further, the vast majority of votes by the General Assembly are taken by show of hands, and in these cases no official record is kept of the way in which Delegations voted.

Mr. Gallacher: Can we take it from the decisions which have been reached that the right hon. Gentleman has experienced no serious ideological differences in dealing with the representatives of American private enterprise?

Mr. McNeil: I do not think that that is a fair assumption. The hon. Gentleman, of course, will make what inferences he pleases, particularly since there is no evidence on the subject.

Mr. H. Strauss: Is it the policy of His Majesty's Government to vote in accordance with the merits of the case, or to try to keep the score equal as between the various countries?

JAPAN (EMPEROR WORSHIP)

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that there is evidence in Japan of a movement to re-introduce Emperor worship; and whether he will instruct the British representative on the Far-Eastern Commission to press for immediate action to prohibit activities of this nature.

Mr. McNeil: Since the answer to the first part of the Question is, "No, Sir," the second part would not seem to arise.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that when Hirohito went to Hiroshima recently he was received with wild acclamation by at least 50,000 Japanese citizens? Is not that a most undesirable development?

Mr. McNeil: I think there is a confusion of thought here. Neither we nor anyone else can prevent subjects paying what tribute they think fitting to their crowned head. It is, however, important that there should be no recurrence of Emperor worship in Japan, and there is an ordinance, a regulation, to take care of that.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this can only be handled by long-term education, and that it is no good trying to pass Bills or laws, or enforcing these things on a short-term basis?

TRANSJORDAN (TREATY)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what negotiations are taking place with a view to revising the Treaty between Transjordan and the United Kingdom; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. McNeil: None, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTA

Development and Welfare Fund

Mr. Charles Smith: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what grants have so far been made to Malta from the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund; and how they have been used.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Rees-Williams): As the answer to the hon. Member's Question is rather long, I propose, with his permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The following are the grants under the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts so far made to Malta.

Grant.
Date approved.
Subject.


£




1,277
26.3.42
Continuation of services of an Adviser in Animal Husbandry to 1.1.43.


215
12.8.44
Training of Maltese craftsman in manufacture, fitting


5
13.6.47
and repair of artificial limbs.


2,168
1.3.46
Appointment of Chief Government Medical Officer.


278
17.8.46
Social Science Course for officer of Department of


12
18.3.47
Labour and Social Welfare.


224,910
3.7.47
Development of Water Resources.


120,000
13.11.47
Royal University of Malta: Building and equipment of science laboratories and Students' Union.


(Grant of a maximum of £120,000 in 3 instalments. Position to be reviewed before second and third instalments are approved). 5,000
13.11.47
Royal University of Malta: Purchase of books for Library.

Dockyard (Employment)

Mr. Charles Smith: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have now been taken to reabsorb into employment men previously employed in the Malta Dockyard.

Mr. Rees-Williams: By the new Constitution, this matter is wholly within the sphere of the Maltese Ministers and the Legislative Assembly of Malta, and it would not be proper for me to answer for them. I am, however, glad to take this opportunity of stating that my right hon. Friend is fully alive to the importance of finding outlets for Malta's surplus labour, and His Majesty's Government will do whatever may be possible to meet any request for assistance in tackling this problem which the Government of Malta may make to them.

SERVICES' LAND REQUIREMENTS (WHITE PAPER)

Mr. Lambert: asked the Prime Minister when the White Paper on the Services' Land Requirements is to be published.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): A White Paper on the Needs of the Armed Forces for Land for Training and other Purposes has been presented, and copies will be available in the Vote Office this afternoon.

Mr. Lambert: Do the Government propose to put down a Motion to approve the proposals contained in that White Paper

and, if so, will there be an opportunity for Debate before the Christmas Recess?

The Prime Minister: That question ought to be put to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Mr. Molson: Do the Defence Departments have to submit all requests for land to this Committee before acquiring it?

The Prime Minister: The Committee reviewed the whole of the requirements and came to general decisions, but, as the hon. Member is aware, there is a proposal that there should be local inquiries with regard to specific parts of land.

Mr. Molson: Can we take it that the proposal to acquire part of Dovedale will be submitted to this Committee for their opinion?

The Prime Minister: I would rather see that question on the Order Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES

Petrol Economy

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Defence what estimated annual saving in petrol will be secured as a result of his instructions to the Service Depart-in regard to economy.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): It is estimated that consumption of motor spirit by the Services in the year ending 30th June, 1948, will be about 620,000 tons as compared with 1,065,000 tons in the previous year—a drop of over


40 per cent. It is not possible to say how much of this saving is the result of specific economies, but the reduction has been effected relatively more quickly than the reduction in manpower strengths.

Sir T. Moore: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his satisfactory reply, may I ask him whether the instructions issued to the Services indicated the hardship being suffered by the civilian community through being deprived of their basic petrol ration?

Mr. Alexander: The Services have been left in no doubt about the urgency of the need for economy.

Mr. Bing: Will my right hon. Friend indicate that when he used the term "motor spirit" he did not use it in accordance with the Trade and Navigation Returns of the Board of Trade, but exclusively as a fuel used for internal combustion engines on land, excluding aviation spirit?

Mr. Alexander: Yes, Sir. The figure does not include aviation spirit. A reduction of 44,000 tons of aviation spirit is foreshadowed, but we must keep sufficient to provide for efficient training.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many gallons are involved, so that the public can more readily understand the matter without having to be senior wranglers?

Mr. Alexander: I shall have to work it out.

Mr. Mikardo: Having said that it is hoped to save some aviation spirit, will my right hon. Friend investigate how much can be saved by dropping the Royal Air Force practice of using high octane spirit for cleaning purposes, including cleaning hangar floors?

Mr. Alexander: If my hon. Friend has any information about that I should be glad if he would put it to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Air.

Mr. Mikardo: I have already done so.

Major Legge-Bourke: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the proportion of the economy will not be so great in the case of armoured units, requiring petrol for training; as in the case of ordinary maintenance units, using it for administrative purposes?

Mr. Alexander: We have indicated that we require a certain economy, and I would rather leave it to the Army themselves to make that economy in the place where it will be felt least.

Mr. Austin: Will my right hon. Friend look into the question of combining elementary flying training of the Air Force and Naval Air Arm, where that is suitable?

Mr. Alexander: A great deal of elementary flying training is already being done by the Royal Air Force for the Navy, and has been done for many years past. But if there is any further development in that direction a Question might be put to the Admiralty.

Defence Committee

Mr. Maclay: asked the Minister of Defence how many meetings of the Defence Committee have taken place since its inception, and how many of these meetings have been attended by the Minister of Transport.

Mr. Alexander: It would be against the public interest to give the information which the hon. Member seeks.

Mr. Maclay: On what occasion shall we be able to discuss this type of question, and the problem of transport in relation to defence? Is that kept firmly in view by the Defence Committee?

Mr. Alexander: That would be a matter for Mr. Speaker, but page 337 of Erskine May shows that a question is inadmissible either on decisions or proceedings of the Cabinet or the Committee of Imperial Defence.

Sir R. Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there is sufficient coordination between the three Services and the Ministry of Transport?

Mr. Alexander: Yes, Sir.

Occupied Land, Scotland

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Defence what proportion of the 1,050,000 acres occupied by the Forces is in Scotland and how this compares with the figures of land occupied by the Forces in 1938.

Mr. Alexander: Nearly In per cent. as compared with about 7 per cent. in 1938.

Mr. Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the War Office are contemplating taking another 21,000 acres of land in Roxburghshire? Will he reconsider this matter?

Mr. Alexander: My hon. Friend will be seeing the White Paper which is being laid today. As indicated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War yesterday, Scotland is having a much smaller share of her land used for Service purposes than other parts of Britain. We have had pressure from other directions to take more land in Scotland and less elsewhere.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Can my right hon. Friend say how much of this land was formed food producing, and how much is food producing now, and what is being done to repair the consequent loss to the community?

Mr. Alexander: That matter is dealt with in the White Paper. Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend will study it.

Lord William Scott: When the land of Scotland is being taken will those parts which are not of high agricultural value be taken?

Mr. Alexander: I do not think that the White Paper will show that there is a great percentage of the land to be used anywhere which is of high agricultural value.

Lord William Scott: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the land on the Cheviots which it is proposed to take over is the finest sheep land in the South of Scotland?

Mr. Alexander: I am sure that all that will be examined during the usual procedure which will deal with the merits of such questions.

Officers, London (Motor Transport)

Mr. Emrys Roberts: asked the Minister of Defence how many officers in each of the Services serving in London are brought from their residences to their offices and taken home again by official Service cars; what are the ranks of such officers; and how many cars are used for such purposes in each Service; and what is the total amount of petrol consumed in such journeys.

Mr. Alexander: As I have already explained to the hon. Member in a letter, this is a matter of detailed administration for which responsibility to Parliament rests with the Service Ministers, and cannot be regarded as falling within the scope of the purposes for which the Ministry of Defence was set up.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: Does not the Minister consider that the present circumstances impose a need for a common policy in the Services on this matter, especially in view of the need for civilian fuel, and the hardship caused to the civilian population in areas where public transport is not available?

Mr. Alexander: There is no doubt about the need for economy, and that is constantly being pressed. Detailed information about Service officers, cars, and matters of this kind can only be obtained, by putting Questions to the Ministers responsible to Parliament for the administration of the Services, as explained in Paragraph 20 of the White Paper on Central Organisation for Defence.

Deserters

Mr. Austin: asked the Minister of Defence at whose discretion and on whose authority, are deserters, convicted of civil crimes, discharged from the forces; and whether he can give an estimate of the numbers involved in such discharges.

Mr. Alexander: A number of men, not necessarily deserters, convicted of civil crimes have been discharged, if their sentences were lengthy or if they had shown through continual misbehaviour that they were useless to the Forces. Discharges of this kind require the authority of the Service Department concerned at home, or of the Commander-in-Chief concerned overseas. I am afraid I cannot give a reliable estimate of the number of deserters concerned.

Mr. Austin: Does my right hon Friend's rather vague answer mean that a deserter who commits a sufficiently serious misdemeanour or felony can by that method secure his discharge from the Forces?

Mr. Alexander: I do not think that can be assumed at all. All these cases are dealt with entirely on their merits. In dealing with cases such as desertion and other forms of serious crime, the continuance of the service of a man who


has committed such a crime might be of great detriment to the Service, and the Service authorities have the right to consider whether the man should not be discharged in the interests of the Service.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: Can the Minister say, when these men escape from his control, if they are handed over to the Ministry of Labour, and can they be directed?

Mr. Alexander: I should like notice of that question.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that the police informed me that gangs invite discontented soldiers to commit burglary? If they are not caught, they get the proceeds of the burglary, and, if they are caught, they get dismissed from the Army for burglary.

Mr. Alexander: Every case is dealt with on its merits.

Mr. Austin: In view of the importance of this matter, how can hon. Members assess the character of this difficulty if they are not given the information for which I have asked? Can we have a figure given of the numbers of men involved in such discharges? Surely, that is a simple matter.

Mr. Alexander: It is not quite so simple. If we have continually to expand the administration to make detailed inquiries into every one of these questions, we should go on and on increasing the Civil Service.

Mr. Austin: asked the Minister of Defence, having regard to the increase in the number of deserters since March last by approximately 3,500 and the difficulties attendant in resolving this problem, what were the methods adopted at the end of the 1914–18 war; and if he proposes to consider the use of the same methods at the present time.

Mr. Alexander: The number of deserters outstanding has decreased by about 800 since 31st March, not increased by 3,500 as stated by my hon. Friend. After the 1914–18 war a procedure was adopted which meant that except in the worst cases no further action was taken to recover wartime deserters, but this did not operate until after compulsory military service had been abolished. Present conditions are totally dissimilar and for this,

and other reasons which I have already explained, a similar policy cannot be adopted now.

Mr. Austin: Will not my right hon. Friend give this matter his serious consideration? How does he hope to solve this problem unless he uses a certain amount of courage and vision. Why does not he show a certain amount of courage in standing up to the "Blimps" in the Service Departments, and on the other side of the House?

Mr. Alexander: I do not need any lessons from my hon. Friend upon courage or the occasions on which to use it. I have been tackling this matter for many months past. More than 3,000 men are being quite satisfactorily rehabilitated in response to my offer, and my hon. Friend is only doing a disservice to the men who have not yet responded by deterring them from taking the proper course.

Mr. Austin: In view of the fact that this subject was down for the Adjournment on Monday last and was not called, may I give notice that if the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) does not raise it, I intend to do so at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. Parkin: asked the Minister of Defence how many men classified as deserters in each year since 1939 were men who did not report for service on call-up; and what percentage they formed of the total figure of deserters in each year.

Mr. Alexander: I regret that this information is not readily available and could not be produced without considerable labour. In general, however, I may say that the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force have been able to select their National Service men from among those who expresse a preference for one or other of those Services. Very few of such men have failed to report on call-up.
As regards the Army, if my hon. Friend puts down a question, I have no doubt my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War will do his best to provide any information which is readily available.

Mr. Parkin: Arising out of the rather astounding reply of my right hon. Friend, is he aware that this is a very important aspect of the problem; that these men


have no difficulty in obtaining ordinary civilian ration books for as long as they evade call-up; and will he tell the House how it is, if he was prepared the other night to answer a Debate on the Adjournment, why he had not asked his own Department to get this information for him?

Hon. Members: Speech.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member's Question is really getting intolerably long.

Strengths

Mr. A. R. W. Low: asked the Minister of Defence whether the strength of the three services will be reduced to 700,000 by 31st March, 1948; and what will be the strength of each service at that date.

Mr. Alexander: No, Sir. The position remains as stated by me on 23rd October last, when I said that the revised estimate of the strengths of the Forces at 31st March next was 147,000 for the Royal Navy, 527,000 for the Army, and 263,000 for the Royal Air Force, giving a total of 937,000 for the three Services.

Mr. Low: While I express gratitude for that statement, may I ask if the right hon. Gentleman will ensure that the Secretary of State for War does not mislead the public in his week-end speeches, and, therefore, that he does not cast more doubt upon the whole of this important question than is necessary?

Mr. Alexander: I think that the Secretary of State for War has already issued an explanation showing the fallibility of some of the reports made, and that he was referring rather to the trend of reduction than committing himself to figures.

Major Legge-Bourke: Can the Minister say whether he has anything in mind with a view to co-ordinating the three Services?

Mr. Alexander: We are following up the policy which we laid before the House when the White Paper was discussed 12 months ago in regard to certain Services upon which we required convincing, and we hope to deal with the matter in the White Paper to be laid before Parliament in a few months.

Brigadier Head: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this type of statement by the Secretary of State for War,

even in the form of a forecast, has a most disturbing effect on the people in the Services, and has it not become something of a habit of the Secretary of State for War to do this sort of thing?

Mr. Mellish: On a point of Order. Are hon. Members entitled to ask questions on a statement which has been officially denied? Have they the right to question a statement which the Secretary of War did not make?

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members are entitled to clarify any doubt that they have in their minds. Some hon. Members may not have heard the Secretary of State for War deny it.

Mr. Eden: I do not want to discuss what the Secretary of State for War may or may not have said. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is quite clear that the policy laid down previously in the White Paper is unchanged, whatever the Secretary of State for War may or may not have said?

Mr. Alexander: Yes, Sir, of course. No detailed conclusions of the Government with regard to the financial year 1948–49 can be stated before the Estimates for the year have been settled, and the White Paper laid before Parliament.

Mr. Low: asked the Minister of Defence what changes he intends to the National Service Scheme whereby the strength of the active Army, including the intake, will be only 300,000 in 1949; or whether he has now decided that the regular strength of the Army is to be less than 200,000.

Mr. Alexander: Final decisions regarding the strengths of the Forces for 1948–49 will be taken by the Government in considering the financial provision to be made in the Defence Estimates for that year. Those decisions will be announced in the Defence White Paper, and I would ask the hon. Member to await its publication.

ADEN (DISTURBANCES)

Mr. Sydney Silverman: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State whether he has any statement to make about the recent disturbances in Aden; what is the number of lives lost; how much property has been burnt or otherwise destroyed and what measures are


contemplated for restoring and maintaining public order and ensuring equal protection for all citizens irrespective of race or creed.

Mr. Rees-Williams: A partial Arab strike was observed in Men on 2nd December without incident in the morning, but in the evening of that day a large hostile demonstration approached the Jewish quarter in the part of Aden known as the Crater. The police succeeded generally in protecting the quarter for a time, but looting of Jewish shops ensued, which could not be wholly controlled in spite of the use of tear smoke and deliberate rifle fire. As the situation was deteriorating, the Governor called for military aid, and the Air Officer Commanding, who is the Fortress Commander, assumed control. One hundred Arabs had been arrested and the night passed quietly, but on the following day there was fresh fire-raising mob action in the Crater, and the Governor proclaimed a state of emergency in the Colony and authorised the Fortress Commander to enforce a curfew in the Crater. In spite of these measures extensive looting of Jewish stores and shops occurred and many Jewish houses were burned. About 900 Jews living in the suburb of Sheikh Othman were evacuated to the nearby Jewish migration camp which was under military protection, but 14 Jews who remained behind were killed by rioters.
H.M.S. "Contest" and H.M.S. "Cockade" and H.M.S. "Challenger," being at the time at Aden, landed detachments of naval ratings which had a valuable effect, and on the morning of 5th December two companies of the North Staffordshire Regiment reached Aden by air from Egypt.
On 6th December the Governor reported that the situation had become generally calmer although sporadic fire-raising attempts had still been made. He stated the known casualties on that date to be 34 Arabs, two Indians and 75 Jews killed and some hundreds of both Jewish and Arab communities wounded. His Majesty's Government and the Government of Aden deeply deplore this loss of life. I have not yet received a detailed statement of the property burnt or otherwise destroyed, and the figures of casualties that I have given are the latest available.
On 8th December the Governor reported the situation since Saturday last to be generally calm, and all necessary measures are being taken to maintain order and to ensure protection for all communities.

Mr. Silverman: Will my hon. Friend inquire to see whether the reported number of 140 Jews killed is correct; whether it is correct that two synagogues were burnt to the ground; whether it is correct that the only two Jewish schools were burned to the ground, and whether anything will be done to afford reasonable compensation as well as security in the future.

Mr. Rees-Williams: As I have already stated, I am awaiting a detailed statement of the property burned or otherwise destroyed and until then there is nothing I can add.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Would the Under-Secretary tell us whether the personnel of the police force in Aden is recruited from this country and how many casualties they have suffered?

Mr. Rees-Williams: I cannot answer that question without notice.

Mr. Silverman: Could my hon. Friend tell the House whether this is British protected territory and whether responsibility for maintaining law and order remains with His Majesty's Government when the country remains British protected territory?

Mr. Rees-Williams: This territory is not actually British protected territory but is a British colony. The British protected territory is to the north of this particular part in which this incident occurred.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: Has the hon. Gentleman any reason to believe that those responsible did not do their duty to the full in very difficult circumstances?

Mr. Rees-Williams: I am quite sure that they fully carried out their duty and we are very grateful to them for acting in this way in very difficult circumstances.

Dr. Segal: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is no Army or R.A.F. unit stationed in the Crater and that most of them are in Khormaksar or Steamer Point about eight or nine miles away from this thickly populated area, and could he not see his


way to make arrangements for permanent Army or R.A.F. units to be stationed inside this area to prevent a recurrence of such outrages?

Mr. Rees-Williams: The question of the location of units is a matter for the officer commanding the garrison and I would not interfere with his discretion in this matter.

Mr. Silverman: In view of the supplementary question asked by the right hon.

Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) a moment ago will my hon. Friend bear in mind that no criticism whatever was implied in my Question of the action of the authorities on the spot who appeared to have acted with commendable speed and authority as soon as they realised what was going on? My question was directed to the future not to the past.

Mr. Rees-Williams: I am glad to accept my hon. Friend's assurance on that point.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting,

from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

The House divided: Ayes, 281; Noes, 124.

Division No. 44.]
AYES.
[3.37 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Ewart, R.
McGovern, J.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Farthing, W. J.
Mack, J. D.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Fernyhough, E.
McKinlay, A. S.


Alpass, J. H.
Field, Capt. W. J.
Maclean, N. (Govan)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
McLeavy, F.


Attewell, H. C.
Foot, M. M.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Forman, J. C.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.


Austin, H. Lewis
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Awbery, S. S.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Ayles, W. H.
Gallacher, W.
Mann, Mrs. J.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Bacon, Miss A.
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Marquand, H. A.


Baird, J.
Gibbins, J.
Marshall, F. (Brightside)


Balfour, A.
Gilzean, A.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George


Barton, C
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mayhew, C. P.


Battley, J. R.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Medland, H. M.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Grenfell, D. R.
Mellish, R. J.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon F. J
Grey, C. F.
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Benson, G.
Grierson, E.
Mikardo, Ian.


Berry, H.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.


Beswick, F.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Mitchison, G. R.


Bing, G. H. C.
Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Binns, J.
Gunter, R. J
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)


Blenkinsop, A.
Guy, W. H.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)


Blyton, W. R.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Mort, D. L.


Boardman, H.
Hale, Leslie
Moyle, A.


Bottomley, A. G.
Hall, Rt, Hon. Glenvil
Murray, J. D.


Bowen, R.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Nally, W.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Hardy, E. A.
Naylor, T. E.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Harrison, J.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Nicholis, H. R. (Stratford)


Bramall, E. A.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
O'Brien, T.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Herbison, Miss M.
Oldfield, W. H.


Brown, George (Belper)
Hicks, G.
Oliver, G. H.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Holman, P.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)


Buchanan, G.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Carmichael, James
Hoy, J.
Parker, J.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hubbard, T.
Parkin, B. T.


Champion, A. J.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Chater, D.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Peart, T. F.


Cluse, W. S.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Perrins, W.


Cobb, F. A.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Piratin, P.


Cocks, F. S.
Hutchinson, H. L, (Rutholme)
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)


Coldrick, W.
Hynd, J. B. (Altercliffe)
Popplewell, E.


Collick, P.
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool, Edge Hill)
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Collins, V. J.
Irving, W J. (Tottenham, N.)
Price, M. Philips


Colman, Miss G. M.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Proctor, W. T.


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Janner, B.
Pryde, D. J.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Jay, D. P. T.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Randall, H. E.


Corvedale, Viscount
John, W.
Ranger, J.


Crawley, A.
Jones, D. T (Hartlepool)
Rankin, J.


Daines, P.
Jones, P. Asterlay (Hitchin)
Rees-Williams, D. R.


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Keenan, W.
Reeves, J.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Kendall, W. D.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Kenyon, C.
Richards, R.


Deer, G.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Kinley, J.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Delargy, H. J.
Lang, G.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Dodds, N. N.
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Leonard, W.
Rogers, G. H. R.


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Lever, N. H.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Dumpleton, C. W.
Levy, B. W.
Royle, C.


Durbin, E. F. M.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Scollan, T.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lindgren, G. S.
Scott-Elliot, W.


Edelman, M.
Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)
Segal, Dr. S.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Lipson, D. L.
Sharp, Granville


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Longden, F.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Lyne, A. W.
Skeffington, A. M.


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
McAdam, W.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
McAllister, G.
Skinnard, F. W.


Evans, John (Ogmore)
McEntee, V. La T.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
McGhee, H. G.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)




Snow, J. W.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Solley, L. J.
Tiffany, S.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Sorensen, R. W.
Timmons, J.
Wigg, George


Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Titterington, M. F.
Wilkes, L


Sparks, J. A.
Tolley, L.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Stamford, W.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Stokes, R. R.
Turner-Samuels, M.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Stubbs, A. E.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Summerskill, Dr. Edith
Usborne, Henry
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Swingler, S.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Sylvester, G. O.
Viant, S. P.
Willis, E.


Symonds, A. L.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Warbey, W. N
Wise, Major F J


Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Watkins, T. E.
Wyatt, W.


Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Watson, W. M.
Yates, V. F.


Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)



Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Thomas, John R. (Dover)
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.
Mr. Simmons and


Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Wheatley, J. T. (Edinburgh, E.)
Mr. Wilkins.




NOES.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G
Grimston, R. V.
Neven-Spence, Sir B


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Hannon, Sir P (Moseley)
Nicholson, G.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Odey, G. W.


Baldwin, A. E.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Osborne, C.


Barlow, Sir J.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Baxter, A. B.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Peto Brig. C. H. M.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Pickthorn, K.


Beechman, N. A.
Hurd, A.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Birch, Nigel
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Bossom, A. C.
Jarvis, Sir J.
Raikes, H. V.


Bower, N.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Jennings, R.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Keeling, E. H.
Ropner, Col. L.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Bullock, Capt. M
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H
Scott, Lord W.


Butcher, H. W.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Carson, E.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Smithers, Sir W.


Challen, C.
Lloyd, Major Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Snadden, W. M.


Channon, H.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Spenoe, H. R.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Low, A. R. W.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Teeling, William


Crowder, Capt. John E.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Touche, G. C.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Turton, R. H.


Davidson, Viscountess
MacLeod, J.
Vane, W. M. F.


Digby, S. W.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Dodds-Parker, A. D
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Ward, Hon. G. R.

Drewe, C.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Marples, A. E.
Wheatley, Col. M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Eccles, D. M.
Marsden, Capt. A.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Medlicott, F.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Erroll, F. J.
Mellor, Sir J.
York, C.


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L
Molson, A. H. E.



Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Lieut.-Colonel Thorp and


Glyn, Sir R.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Mr. Studholme.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.

Orders of the Day — PARLIAMENT BILL

Order for Third Reading read.

3.49 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
I am in the happy position that, judged by the proceedings in Committee, this Measure has now reached the stage of a non-controversial proposal. I have to express my thanks to His Majesty's Opposition for their co-operation on the Committee stage in enabling us speedily to discharge our duties. We had five speeches from the Opposition, two by lawyers, two by hon. Members for universities and one by an hon. Member who was both a lawyer and a Member for a university. [An HON. MEMBER: "And something else."]
This Bill is a short and workmanlike Measure to bring up to date an Act which, at the time of its passing, was fiercely resisted by the party now represented by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. They then proclaimed their definite intention, as soon as they got into office, to repeal it. Now they accept it as one of the pillars of the Constitution. Therefore, one does not have to argue anything other than the shortening of the time during which another place can delay the non-financial proposals which this House sends forward to them. We feel that the length of time allowed in this Bill of one year and two Sessions is adequate to ensure that proposals which may be the subject of controversy between the two Houses shall receive full and ample consideration before being carried into effect, even if another place should not be reconciled to them.
I do not think it has been seriously argued during the Committee stage or on the Second Reading, that this is a Measure which can, in itself, be regarded as unreasonable, but it would be wrong of me to leave the Third Reading without making it quite clear that this is a Measure which, if necessity should arise, the Government intend to use in order to secure the passage of controversial legislation. We repeat the statement made by

the right hon Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) when he was speaking on the Third Reading of the Bill of 1911:
We do not want the Parliament Bill for itself alone; we want it to carry our Measures; we want it to carry Measures which, if they had been in a Conservative programme, would have been carried long ago."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May, 1911; Vol. 25, c. 1772.]
It was suggested by the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) during the Committee proceedings on the Bill that we required this for one Measure only. This is a general precautionary Measure which we take in order that we may be able to complete the programme which we laid before the country before the General Election of 1945, and we want it to be clearly understood that any effort on the part of another place to obstruct us in carrying through that programme will be dealt with under the proposals of this Bill.
The only other point with which I have to deal is the question of the timing of this Bill. This is the last possible opportunity we shall have of putting it forward if we are to be certain of carrying it in this Parliament. We did not bring it in previously, because, until this Session, we were in the position that Measures we introduced, if rejected by another place, could be carried through under the provisions of the existing Parliament Act. From this Session onwards, we shall not be in that position. Therefore, at this stage we think it desirable to ensure that the remaining Sessions of this Parliament shall be as fruitful in useful and constructive legislation as the previous Sessions of this Parliament have been, and as we intend this Session to be.
There is no danger in this country that legislation will ever be too quick, unless it comes with the general consent of both Houses. We saw during the war the way in which during one day the most sweeping changes could be made when there was an urgent sense of necessity, and a feeling that it was desirable that Measures should be put through with the utmost speed. In ordinary times, however, the procedure of this House and consultations with another place, ensure that considerable delay must take place between the origin of a Bill here and its final passage into law, and if there has been any danger in modern times, it has been that the machinery of Parliament is too slow rather than too quick to keep pace with the


ordinary needs of the country in legislative matters.
Therefore, we do not feel that in suggesting that, between the date of the first Second Reading of a Measure in this House and its final submission to the Throne, an interval of 12 months is too short a period for safety. It has been suggested in the course of our deliberations that the only time which ought to be counted is the period between the date when the Bill emerges from Committee in this House and its submission to another place. I really think that hon. Members opposite do themselves less than justice in their powers of pointing out to the country what they imagine to be the dangers of our legislation, and they also very considerably under-estimate the imaginative powers of the writers who support them in the Press.
With this Measure we may feel that we have indicated what are the maximum powers of delay which any Second Chamber, no matter how constituted, should enjoy in this country. There were hon. Friends of mine who, during the Committee stage, felt that we had been overgenerous in this matter. I think they were appropriately dealt with by the Lord President. This Measure gives to the country an assurance that, if another place has doubts as to the wisdom of any proposals we submit to them, before the Bill can become law it must again be submitted here and passed through all its stages, so that a fresh opportunity for the Opposition of the day to state their views may be afforded.
This country enjoys a settled Government, which is a great asset in the present troubled state of the world, but one of the things that democracy has to prove is that it can, with speed and certainty, deal with needed reforms that from time to time have to be considered by the Parliamentary machine. I regard failure to convince the country of that as the greatest danger that might afflict us as a Parliamentary democracy, and it is because I believe this Measure, thought out as it has been, will meet the needs of our time, and not because of any antiquarian interest or slavish subservience to precedent, that I commend it to the House. I see no reason—after the way in which it has been treated by the Opposition in this House and the sparsity of their attendance

this afternoon—why this Bill should not speedily become law. I can think of no better Christmas present for democracy than that we should be able to get the Royal Assent to this Measure before we part for the Christmas Recess.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I beg to move, to leave out "now," and to add at the end of the Question "upon this day six months."
The Home Secretary started his brief and very ineffective speech by trailing, and, I think, deliberately trailing his coat. He then proceeded to give the explanation, arising from a guilty conscience, of the reason why at the last stage the Government have thought of this iniquitous Measure, and brought it forward in the wrong way at the wrong time. Let me first deal with some debating points he condescended to put before the House on this important occasion. He started by saying that the only speakers on this side of the House were lawyers and university Members. I fail to see why such types of hon. Members should be out of place in discussing a matter of constitutional law relating to the British Constitution. I venture to suggest that had the legal advice provided for the Government on this occasion been of a higher quality and been possessed of some of the learning in the heads and minds of some of the university Members, they would have brought forward a Measure of very much greater value than this to our ancient British Constitution.
The right hon. Gentleman's second main point, so far as one could discern any points in his short address, was a rather unconvincing explanation of why the Government have suddenly thought of this Measure and brought it forward on this occasion. Of course we know the reason why that explanation had to be the sole feature of the right hon. Gentleman's inadequate speech. The reason is that this Bill was thought of at the last moment and was brought forward in a hurry to deal with dangers and rifts in the party opposite, which would otherwise have resulted in the demise of that party and split it into indefinite fragments. The country knows that fact perfectly well, and recognises the origin and parentage of the Bill equally well. The right hon. Gentleman's arguments cannot stand up dialectically because the Government have


chosen to bring forward this Measure at a time when they have had two years' experience of the moderate use by the House of Lords of their powers towards the Government's legislation.
If they wanted to bring this Bill forward, they should have brought it forward at the beginning of the Parliament, when they might have felt anxiety about the House of Lords. That would have been the time to bring forward such a Bill. In fact, they know from experience that the Upper House have dealt with legislation put forward, including, I think, six Bills involving nationalisation proposals, with the utmost moderation and in accordance with the general spirit of our Constitution. There is no justification, therefore, for this Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman and his friends have brought it forward to save their own bacon within their own party, and not in order to serve the needs of the British Constitution.
I deliberately used the expression "saving their own bacon" because the right hon. Gentleman had the offensive daring to bring forward at the end of his speech the argument that this was a useful Christmas present. Frankly, what the country wants from this Government—and I will not further err on the Third Reading, but I am answering the right hon. Gentleman—as a Christmas present is more food, better administration, and more confidence in the manner in which the affairs of our country are being handled. They do not want Bills of this miserable sort, which give them a great feeling that the party opposite have not realised the magnitude of the constitutional issue involved.
I do not think it is necessary to refer any more to the paltry contribution of the right hon. Gentleman to our Debates. I only wish to say this to him quite seriously. He and I were engaged in a major reform involving as it did many political, and, indeed, religious and denominational questions. When we were considering that reform we came to the conclusion that those who attempt small and pettifogging, tinkering, reforms usually fail in the end. We came to the conclusion, when considering the reform of the educational structure of the country, that, unless we did the thing in a big way, it would not last. My objection to the right hon. Gentleman and his Government on this occasion is that they have

done this reform in a small way. It has all the evils of tinkering, and when one tinkers, the vessel one is mending in that way either leaks and has to be repaired again, or it is unusable and it is a bad method of handling the matter. We feel it is exactly the same in dealing with the British constitution.
If we are going to have a reform, why not adopt the procedure and method which is part of our ancient tradition, namely, that constitutional matters should be settled by agreement between all shades of opinion in the House? Why did not the right hon. Gentleman and his friends make some attempt to find out opinion, and to find out whether there was that juxtaposition of personalities and political forces which alone make possible a great and major reform? I say this quite seriously because the right hon. Gentleman would, I am convinced, have found much more basis for agreeing about what wants doing to another place, than by handling it in this petty way, which can only alienate us on this side of the House and cannot possibly achieve a major reform. That, then, is our first objection on the Third Reading of this Bill, that this is a petty, tinkering reform, which will not last, and about which no attempt has been made to obtain the agreement of the Opposition, and no attempt has been made to obtain a lasting reform such as is suitable for the British Constitution.
Let me now look, as, no doubt, you Sir would desire me to do, at the contents of the Bill. The first feature with which I want to deal is its proposal for retroactive legislation. What we find here is that the constitutional rules are being altered as from a date before the procedure of making the alteration has been completed. That is a procedure which, so far as I know—and I am supported here by the university Members and, as far as I know, by the Home Secretary—for which there is no precedent. The Home Secretary was content on 4th December to say that he did not care whether there was a precedent or not, and his argument was that anything was good enough if done by a Labour Government. He brushed aside all that careful attention to precedent which has always been a feature of our Constitution, and has always been a feature of those who were building up any changes to that Constitution.
We feel this precedent is particularly dangerous in the case of a constitutional Bill. The precedent for causing legislation to work backwards is one which, after all, could be extended by any Government to other types of Bills. It can be extended, for example, to the sphere of the individual, and if individual rights are to be treated in this way, we are getting into such a dangerous realm of legal theory and argument, and, indeed, practice, that it will result in something which is totally alien to our best characteristics as a nation, and to the whole spirit of our ideas of liberty and constitutional law.
The right hon. Gentleman has been priding himself that he is ultra-modern. Re said so again in his short speech this afternoon. He said he was not antiquarian. In fact the one character in history of whom the right hon. Gentleman reminds me is that old-fashioned reactionary described by Disraeli as:
The serene intelligence of the profound Metternich.
What was the characteristic of Metternich? In the Carlsbad Decrees, Metternich deliberately resorted to the system of retroactive legislation, and in order to keep himself in power and position he introduced laws which affected the individual, and caused the individual to be punished for things which were not illegal at the time they were committed. If we are to have an extension of this principle we shall get into the worst form of reaction, not only retroaction. I appeal to the Government to reconsider this matter before the Bill goes to another place, and to be very cautious about the precedent which they are now introducing.

Mr. Bowles: Surely there can be no retrospective action, or retroaction if the right hon. Gentleman prefers that word, if the House of Lords passes this Bill before this Session ends? It is only if they delay it and use their two years' suspensory power under the Parliament Act that any retrospective legislation is involved.

Mr. Butler: I am not responsible for another place, or for answering how they will act. I am only responsible for criticising the terms of the Measure as we have it before us. It is undeniable that they are in the terms I have described.
What is worse is that we have at once in this Bill the abuse of the retrospective Clause, and prospective punishment for the Upper House out of fear for what it may do. The Government know perfectly well that the House of Lords has not abused the Constitution. There has been so much stated on this aspect that it is unnecessary for me to repeat the arguments which have been used by Members of the Government about the manner in which the House of Lords has satisfactorily discharged its duties. The fact is that since 1914 for example, only two Bills have been rejected under the provisions of the suspensory power in the Parliament Act. One was the Government of Ireland Act, which never came into force, and, in fact, the only Bill which has been affected by this procedure in all that time is the Welsh Church Act, which to some extent is different from other types of legislation just as our Debates involving conscience and religion are different from—

Mr. Alpass: Did they not throw out the Education Bill of 1930?

Mr. Butler: I am giving the information which is at my disposal. I am quite open to correction, if the hon. Member is correct.
In the present Parliament the Lords have deliberately attempted to carry out their duties in a reasonable way. Yet the Government say, "Do not let us reform this institution by agreement, but let us take preventive action." They say, in effect, in homely language, "We do not like your face, we had better bash it in before it is too late." That is precisely the feeling of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. They refuse to judge on a man's record. They are nervous about what he may do, because they do not like his face; therefore, the face has to be bashed in and the man put under preventive arrest.
That is exactly the procedure, not only of Metternich in the early part of the 19th century; it is the procedure of the 20th century dictator today. That is why we attach the utmost importance to the issues which arise in this Bill, and we seek every occasion to warn the country of the tendency shown by the Government about preventive arrest and in regard to disliking a man, and, therefore, taking steps against him, however good


his record may have been before he has had a chance to prove he is guilty. We believe that that sort of procedure is the way dictatorship lies. Therefore, we wish to warn the country of the extreme danger which lies before it if it accepts quietly the Bill as put forward by the present Government.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the question of waiting for the House of Lords being guilty. Supposing that were so in the future, there would be no opportunity of meeting that position because we would not have the powers. What would be the position then?

Mr. Butler: I would say that it would be just too bad.
The Home Secretary deliberately said that no precedent was necessary. When he and I used to work together he always astounded me by his voluminous knowledge of English history, in which he had an unfair advantage, because he was always with the schools and scholars, and was, therefore, perpetually refreshing his memory. May I remind him, as he has a very real knowledge of history, that in the period of the Protectorate there were many leaders and thinkers who thought they could mi-handle our Constitution, and that mishandling affected another place. But at the end of that period there was presented a "Humble Petition and Advice," which brought back the constitutional position, very broadly, in the shape of having two Houses and bicameral government, to what had been the general stream of English constitutional development. I solemnly warn the Government that if they proceed with a tinkering Measure of this sort, they will have to submit at some stage to a Humble Petition and Advice, if they do not take our humble petition and advice on this occasion. They will then have as Marriott, perhaps our greatest constitutional expert, says "to return to the path of constitutional experience" of trying to achieve their requirements by agreement rather than introduce a pettifogging Bill for political party reasons. So much for the procedure of retroactive legislation.
I wish to turn for a moment to the limitation of what is known as the suspensory veto of another place. First I should like to make clear that it is not a veto; it is a suspensory power to enable a Bill

to be reconsidered in the light of action taken on any particular occasion by another place. The right hon. Gentleman made a great point of the need for more speed. He said that unless a Bill was virtually agreed, it would always take a long enough time to be properly considered. We say that the Government's proposal is neither one thing nor the other. Let us examine this period of delay. If a Bill is introduced before Christmas, and proceeds on its way to another place, after being strenuously debated here, and then debated in another place, it is very likely that it will not receive the final approval of another place until the end of July. If the Bill is introduced before Christmas it means that the year's veto which this Bill provides ends just before the next Christmas.
In that case there is virtually only the summer holiday, and perhaps the first month of autumn, in which time is given to the country to consider the implications of the action of the Lords before that Bill returns to the Commons and is pushed through again. There is no question whatever of a year's delay; it is a question of two or three months' delay. When the right hon. Gentleman sneers at the Press, which is now usually on the side of the Government side of the House, and other organs of public consideration, let him reflect that it means that we are left with only that time of the year in which to consider what the Bill means. After all at that time of year some people are entitled to take life a little less strenuously than they do during the rest of the year—it might be better if the Government did so, as then we might have a little more consideration. That is a derisory use of the Government's power. It means that they are, in fact, absolutely truncating that power of the Lords. Nevertheless, the year which is provided in the Bill is not a year, for it is, in fact, a short interval in the summer vacation. That is all the time which is given by this Bill for the consideration of a major Bill which the House of Lords feels it cannot, on the first occasion, pass.
If the Government want delay let them give us delay: if they do not want delay, why have any delay at all? This delay is derisory. The Government seem to me to be posed on the horns of a dilemma even worse than that upon which that great artificial creator of constitutions, the Abbé Sieyès, was posed in the many con-


stitutions he attempted to draft at the time of the French Revolution. He was placed in this dilemma:
If a second chamber dissents from the first it is mischievous, if it agrees it is superfluous.
The Government are in the dilemma that they have power to destroy the suspensory period yet they have provided no suspensory period. Where, in fact, do the Government stand on this matter? I trust that the Lord President will give some reply to this question and will indicate whether the Government are going to think again to try to make this a reality, if in fact they want a suspensory veto for another place at all. It seems to us that the Government have neither achieved reform, nor yet achieved delay, nor yet achieved a proper life for the upper House. They are playing with the Constitution in order to stop rifts within the constitution of their own party.
A further objection I have to this Bill on its Third Reading is that it has been introduced by the wrong method. I base my objection on two main points which the Bill contains. I believe that this will prove an ineffective reform, a reform without agreement. I speak quite sincerely as one who has attempted to do at least one major reform involving issues not unlike some of these, which involved indefinite negotiation and discussion and resulted, in the end, in agreement between the various interests. I believe sincerely that that is the only way to tackle constitutional questions if the reform is to last. I believe it because our Constitution is an unwritten one and—to borrow one of the most important phrases of the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), who made so brilliant a contribution to our Debate—because our Constitution has this feature—the omnicompetence of Parliament.
Parliament is, in fact, entrusted with the constituent powers for altering the Constitution. That is totally unlike any other constitution with which I have ever had to deal either in the East, in the case of India and other constitutions, or in the case of the occasion when the Home Secretary and I went to the Channel Islands to look into their constitutional problems, or in the case of America. The very fact that this House can, by its own

action, overturn something in our unwritten Constitution, imposes upon this House a very severe responsibility. That responsibility ought to be wielded far less lightly than we have had evidence of from the opposite side of the House.
Hon. Members opposite may treat with glee the realisation that they have it in their power, with their overwhelming majority, to change something in our unwritten Constitution. But I beseech and implore them to realise that the action which may seem clever and useful today may not fit in with the gradual increase and growing up of precedent upon precedent which has given us our liberties, and which has caused us to observe those liberties by obeying the secret dictates of the British Constitution. The Lord President may feel perky today; he told me that on his summer holiday, he took Erskine May with him to read, I trust he will revert to that pleasant constitutional atmosphere in which he went away on his summer holiday and that this time he will study Anson's Law and Custom of the Constitution, and other such works, and marry them with his growing knowledge of Erskine May. If he does that, then we may hope to have from him a little better constitutional guidance than we have had on this occasion.
Were it in Order on the Third Reading Debate, I should have liked to develop the point that there are between both sides of the House certain definite points upon which agreement could be reached. I do not intend to press this. I refer only to the statement of the Prime Minister of two conditions, namely, that a Second Chamber, if reformed, must not have concurrent powers with the lower House; and that there must not be a permanent majority for any party in the Upper House. These are important points put forward by the Prime Minister in his Second Reading speech. They are serious points which we believe ought to have been considered by all sections of opinion in this House before any Bill altering the constitution was introduced.
When I look back upon the history of this subject as handled by my right hon. and hon. Friends in the past, dating from the day of the grandfather of the present Leader of the Opposition in the other place, the day of the late Marquis of Salisbury who at the time was Prime


Minister, I find a distinct similarity between views held and the postulates put forward by the Prime Minister on the occasion of his speech. I find a trend throughout of suggestions of a limitation of the principle of hereditary peers likely to be useful in Parliament. I find also a recommendation that life peers should be created on the recommendation of the Prime Minister of the day. Those two trends run through the whole story. In my view, they correspond, not exactly but sufficiently nearly to be interesting, with the proposals put forward by the Prime Minister. Therefore, I regret that the method adopted on this occasion was not a more thoughtful one and that this Government should not feel it possible on constitutional issues to bring in some of my right hon. Friends—and some of my hon. Friends because sometimes all the best knowledge, is not among right hon Gentlemen—in order that we might have considered this matter in the manner which I think is most suitable.
Francis Place, that radical of the 19th century, referred to the British Constitution as:
That nose of wax which everyone twists to his convenience.
The Government are twisting that nose at the present moment to their own convenience, and they are doing more than that. I believe they are cutting off the nose to spite their own face. They will find that out, and they will regret it. I have never been more confident of any remarks I have made than I am of those I make today. This is not the last we shall hear of this subject and, in the end, the Government will be proved wrong in their handling of this matter. We look at it not as a small party matter, but as a matter affecting an unwritten Constitution which, by its very unwritten nature, is the guardian of our liberties.
We shall divide against this Bill. Our opposition today is most strenuous and definite. The Bill solves nothing. It limits the suspensory powers for opportunist motives, it uses methods of retroactive legislation which are entirely reprehensible, especially in a constitutional Bill, and it does violence to that major principle which I mentioned at the beginning, and which I mention again at the end of my speech, and to which I

attach great importance, that constitutional reform in this country should be done, where possible, by agreement.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. William Wells: For two years, we on this side of the House have been accustomed to hearing criticisms of the Government on the score that they have undertaken too much legislation. From today onwards, they appear to be criticised from a different angle, that they are not undertaking enough legislation. In the middle of an economic crisis of quite unparalleled gravity, so we are told, the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) today proposes a Measure of fundamental and far-reaching constitutional importance to be agreed between the two parties, no doubt by means of a series of constitutional conferences on the lines proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) in his speech on the Committee stage.
I cannot conceive a more inopportune moment than this for such a Measure as is proposed by the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden, who has, indeed, a great and justified reputation as the architect of reform in the educational world; but; because the particular technique which he and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary employed was found useful on that Measure, that is no argument for saying that the same method should be applied when we find ourselves confronted, as we do today, with a situation in which the whole of the remainder of the Government's programme may be—and one must emphasise the word "may"—prejudiced by the action of another place.
The right hon. Gentleman produced some very happy and amusing metaphors, as we should expect from him, about the attitude of hon. Members on this side of the House towards another place. I think that, whatever some of us may have said in our youth, in our sober old age today it would be hard indeed to find anything but bouquets which we have presented to another place, and, indeed, most hon. Gentlemen opposite who spoke on Second Reading prefaced their speeches with quotations from speeches on this side of the House about the admirable work which another place is doing. I think that the history of this case, and the history of our programme and the way it has


been put into force, shows that the House of Lords has been quite reasonable and sensible, and has accorded the proper constitutional treatment to Bills sent from this House, and that these facts are a sufficient refutation in themselves of any suggestion that we on this side of the House are actuated by some hostility, or actuated by spite, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested.
As to the charge of tinkering, there was a very significant sentence in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman when he said that any constitutional changes brought about by Measures such as this would not last I can only speak for myself, but I should imagine that the last thing which anybody on this side of the House would desire would be that it should last. On the face of it, it is merely a temporary expedient to deal with a temporary situation.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Will the hon. Gentleman say to what situation he refers?

Mr. Wells: Certainly, though that situation has been elaborated ad nauseam in previous speeches from this side of the House. If the hon. Member for Chichester wants to hear it again from me, I have no objection at all. The situation, of course, is that this Government, within two and a half years of the appointed term of this Parliament, finds itself, not unnaturally, with its programme uncompleted. The party of which I am a Member stated in its Election address that it would not tolerate any obstruction from another place, and the Measure which is now before the House is a Measure to ensure that this obstruction does not occur. That is the situation, and it is perfectly simple.

Mr. Henry Strauss: May I put this point to the hon. Gentleman? He says that the Bill is only temporary, which is something that has not been stated by his own Front Bench. Will he tell us this? This Bill reduces the suspensory veto to one year, but, at the end of the temporary period, will the period of the veto be lengthened or shortened?

Mr. Wells: That question, with respect, seems to me to be an entirely unreal one. The hon. and learned Gentleman is in conflict with his own Front Bench in saying

that the suspensory veto is, in fact, a year, but I will accept that from him. All I am arguing is that, for the duration of this Parliament, all that is needed to make this Government's programme effective is the Measure that is before the House today. In another Parliament, and in another situation, when we have more time, I for one shall certainly welcome the kind of approach which has been envisaged by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden, but I myself should think that it would have been quite improper at this stage, towards the end of a Parliament's life, or in the middle of a Parliament's life, to introduce the far-reaching kind of Measure which the right hon. Gentleman envisaged.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: The hon. Gentleman said a moment ago that the Government would not tolerate any interference by the Upper Chamber. Will he tell us why the Upper Chamber should not be done away with completely, and what are the arguments for retaining it?

Mr. Wells: I am not sure whether any answer which I might give to that question would be in Order or not, but the answer which I, personally, would give is that I quite agree with my right hon. Friend the Lord President, who has said on other occasions that another place has done useful work in this Parliament and has exercised its powers in a constitutional manner. I can think of certain Measures which it has improved, and of certain Measures which have been initiated in another place, such as the Crown Proceedings Act, which are of very great importance and value. Certainly, in a period of an overcrowded Parliamentary programme, as was natural after a great war, that fact is sufficient justification for the existence of another place, but really that is beside the argument. I am now discussing the Third Reading of this Bill and not the academic question whether there should be a Second Chamber or not. I would only say, before passing on, how greatly indebted I am to the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden for teaching me how to pronounce the name of the Abbe Sieyès.
In the course of previous Debates on this Bill, it has been attacked on two substantial grounds. One is that it was retrospective in action, and the second is


that it was unconstitutional to make a constitutional change without a General Election. That, apparently, is a ground from which the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden would dissent, but a number of hon. Members who sit behind him apparently do not dissent. I do not propose to examine any further the question whether or not this is really retrospective legislation. I agree with the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles), in a number of interjections in the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe), that it is not, in fact, retrospective at all, but that the whole point about retrospective legislation is not that it is a thing which we must always avoid at all costs on every occasion, but that it is a thing at which we must look very carefully and which we must examine on its merits in each case. Nobody, for example, complains about an Act of Indemnity, which is, in fact, retrospective legislation of the most glaring kind, because it legalises something which somebody has done which we think is wrong, and because it provides that that person shall not suffer from that action.
The right hon. Gentleman the senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) laid down a series of, I thought, rather startling propositions in the course of his speech in the Committee stage. He said:
In the second place, it is against our normal principles, except for very cogent and decisive exceptional reasons, to make legislation retrospective. This is a retrospective Bill. In the third place, it is against our tradition to have particular legislation in the sense that a general Bill is introduced with the special purpose of applying to a particular named individual or to a known particular case."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1947; Vol. 445, c. 598.]
I must say I find it very hard to follow the significance of that last objection, particularly in relation to this Bill. Putting one professor against another, I was strongly reminded of a passage in a work of a professor from the other University, Sir Arthur Quiller Couch, in which he warned the writer against the use of the word "case."
If one looks at this Bill, one finds that no individual is prejudiced. There is no question, as the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden suggested, of another

place being punished. It is merely a question—if certain powers are exercised in a certain way—of the Government themselves taking power to see that the duration of time in which those powers shall be exercised shall be less. There is no punishment involved. In my submission, none of the principles on which retrospective legislation is rightly watched in every case is, in fact, offended against by this Bill. I hope, shortly, to come to the second point—that it is unconstitutional to make a constitutional change without a General Election.
In the course of his speech in the Committee stage, the hon. Gentleman the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) propounded what seemed to me a most extraordinary argument. He said:
You could not possibly persuade any American, even when you had made him understand the difference between the so-called fixed Constitution of his own country and the so-called flexible Constitution of our own, that in any sense of the word 'constitutional' it could be called constitutional to alter the rules of the Constitution as from some date before the procedure of making the alteration had been completed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 5947; Vol. 445, c. 605.]
That, in my submission, is a most perfect example of the danger of confusing one's terms. I was fortified by a note from the classic work—not quoted, I am sorry to say, by the right hon. Gentleman who quoted Anson—Dicey's "Law of the Constitution." In Note VII of the Appendix, Dicey says:
The expression 'unconstitutional' has, as applied to a law, at least three different meanings varying according to the nature of the constitution with reference to which it is used:

(i) The expression, as applied to an English Act of Parliament, means simply that the Act in question, as, for instance, the Irish Church Act, 1869, is, in the opinion of the speaker, opposed to the spirit of the English Constitution; it cannot mean that the Act is either a breach of law or is void"

Paragraph (ii) deals with the French Constitution, and does not really apply here. Paragraph (iii) says:
The expression, as applied to an Act of Congress means simply that the Act is one beyond the power of Congress, and is therefore-void. The word does not in this case necessarily import any censure whatever. An American might, without any inconsistency, say that an Act of Congress was a good law, that is, a law calculated in his opinion to benefit the country, but that unfortunately it was 'unconstitutional,' that is to say, ultra vires and void.


To criticise this Bill because an American might say it was unconstitutional, when, on the mere face of the terms, the whole meaning is utterly different in the two countries, is, in my submission, no criticism whatever.
There was another rather surprising passage in the speech of the hon. Gentleman the senior Burgess for Cambridge University, in which he dealt with the doctrine of ultra vires. Once again, I would call in aid Dicey, who says:
The sovereignty of Parliament is the dominant characteristic of our political institutions.
He then goes on to quote from Burke, the effect of which is that the real limit to the exercise of sovereignty is imposed not by the laws of man, but by the nature of things.
I do not wish to labour any further this somewhat academic argument about what is constitutional and what is not constitutional. The real gist of the matter was explained by Dicey when he said that the conventions of the Constitution varied from age to age, and from generation to generation. That is the whole gist of this matter. We have to decide on the merits of each situation what action is necessary in order to justify the confidence reposed in us by the electors at the time of our election. If the English Constitution is what some hon. Members opposite have said it is, and if they are the standards by which they gauge the efforts of their unfortunate students and examinees today, I must confess that I now understand for the first time the difficulty I had in satisfying my examiners.
In my submission, all the arguments on the constitutional side of this Bill which have come from hon. Members opposite have been false, misapplied and irrelevant. In my view, the way in which they have striven to build up this academic case—that we are doing something unconstitutional—is the most clear criticism of the grounds on which this Bill is being opposed. They are transparently fictitious and false, and they are the arguments, not of injured constitutionalists, but of an angry minority anxious to frustrate the legitimate use of political power.

4.48 p.m.

Mr. Raikes: It is not my intention to go into a lot of small minor points. After all when it is boiled

down, the argument of the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. W. Wells) amounts to the fact that the Government need this present Measure in order that they may put into operation the whole of their programme in the course of the next two years. Indeed, the Home Secretary said precisely the same thing in slightly different language. I think it might have been fairer to have put it in a slightly different way, and to have said that the object of this Bill was to ensure that, for the next two years, the Government would be able to put into operation any laws they cared to put forward, whether popular or unpopular. That, in fact, is what it really amounts to.
The Home Secretary, who, I am sorry to see is not present at the moment, began by making the sort of error which he seldom makes. He said this was a short Measure. I agree with him there, but he then went on to say that it was a workmanlike Measure, which brought up to date the 1911 Act. In point of fact, that is precisely what it does not do. The framers of the 1911 Act intended, first of all, to deal with the powers, and then tackle the question of composition. This Government do not touch the composition at all. They merely alter the whole basis of the 1911 Act without bringing it up to date in other things. It has been pointed out to us by the Home Secretary that no legislation can be too quick. That is utterly false. All legislation can be too quick, if it happens to be bad legislation. What we fear today is that this Measure is being brought into operation in order to ensure that legislation, good or bad, may be hustled through in the last two years of a Government which have largely exhausted their Mandate. The Measure is unnecessary and undemocratic, and calculated to divide the nation at a time when we are facing a national emergency.
I do not think hon. Members opposite will disagree when I say that the Second Chamber in the past has always had two distinct functions. One was to revise hasty or badly drafted legislation, and the second, where possible, to put some check upon a Government who have either gone beyond their mandate or appear to, have lost the confidence of the nation. The Lord President himself has agreed that this particular Second Chamber has been a good revising Chamber in this Parliament. He went on to say, on the Second Reading—and I have to quote from him because the Home Secretary has said so little in


support of the Bill today that I have to find somebody else who said something—that the trouble about the question of the checking of ill-considered legislation was that, with the present House of Lords, if there was a Conservative Government they would never do anything to trouble the legislation of that Government towards the end of their term of Office. But if we had what he called a progressive Government, then that progressive Government had to put up with checks.
That being so, the Lord President has decided that the real and statesmanlike way to tackle this problem is to ensure that the Second Chamber shall not have the power effectively to check ill-considered legislation by either a Conservative or a progressive Government. Two wrongs have never yet made a right. I should have thought the object of the Lord President, if he wanted to tackle the Second Chamber, and if he thought it was over-weighted on one side, would have been to endeavour to alter the position so that the Second Chamber might be used impartially to check legislation where any Government, Conservative or Socialist, had lost the confidence of the nation, or had gone beyond their mandate.
Instead of taking that way to enable the Second Chamber really to perform one of its important functions, the Lord President went one step beyond that. He said that if it were true in the third or fourth Session of a Parliament that that Parliament was likely to have got out of touch with the nation, the real and logical argument would be triennial Parliaments. He pointed out, and I agree, that triennial Parliaments would lead to great unsettlement, and that they are generally regarded as being unsatisfactory. I think we can also agree that any Government in its third or fourth Session is less likely to be in close touch with the nation than at the beginning of its term of office. For that reason alone, rather than have a triennial Parliament, our Constitution has wisely adopted the other method of having a Second Chamber which, on occasions, can check or hold up legislation which shows that a particular Government has gone beyond its mandate, or beyond what it might properly have done.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: Would that be the case with a Conservative Government?

Mr. Raikes: If the hon. and learned Member had listened to my observations a moment ago, he would have heard me say that the Lord President might have thought that the Second Chamber was one-sided, and that if he had been wise he would have endeavoured to alter the position so that the House of Lords could have played its part impartially in dealing with the legislation of either a Socialist or a Conservative Government. I think that is a perfectly fair point.
No Second Chamber, unless it wishes to commit suicide—and most people do not wish to do so, although more people may wish to under this Government in the future—would be likely deliberately to overthrow legislation if it believed that to do so would be contrary to the view of the nation, because if it did, it would make its position almost impossible when the next Government came into office. For that reason a Second Chamber is always exceedingly careful—and the Second Chamber in this Parliament has been exceptionally careful—first of all not to oppose anything in the mandate of the Government's Election address, and, beyond that, not to oppose even bad legislation—or what might be considered to be bad legislation—so long as by-elections prove that the people are still behind the Government.
I suspect that the Government are now realising that it is pretty plain that they no longer retain the confidence of the nation to anything like the extent which they did two and a half years ago. The real object of this Measure is to ensure, whatever the views of the nation may be, that so long as this Government is in Office they can do whatever they please, popular or unpopular. It is not without significance that the Second Reading of this Measure on 10th November took place just after the municipal elections had shown a considerable swing to the Right.

Mr. McAdam: What about the by-elections?

Mr. Raikes: I am going to deal with by-elections in a moment. It is also not insignificant that the Third Reading should have taken place on 10th December, after four by-elections had shown, in the aggregate, a very considerable change, compared with 1945. I have taken the trouble to make a note of those by-election figures, taking the four together. In 1945, those


four seats revealed 75,753 Conservative votes and 72,603 Socialist votes, which was practically level. Today they have given 91,474 Conservative votes and 68,235 Socialist votes. This Government would be out if they went to the polls tomorrow, and those figures were repeated throughout the country.

Mr. McGhee: That is what the hon. Member hopes.

Mr. Raikes: I am perfectly ready to see them have a try. In view of the turn of the municipal and recent Parliamentary elections, there could not have been a worse or more inopportune moment to tamper with the reasonable constitutional powers of the Second Chamber. If the object of this reduction is, as I believe it is, to enable this Government to pass into law Bills which otherwise would be held up until the verdict of a General Election, then the moment selected for doing so is an extraordinarily bad one.
The Bill is unnecessary, because the Upper Chamber have behaved in a strictly constitutional way throughout the whole period of this Government. It is undemocratic, because at the end of this Government no Second Chamber may be permitted to refer anything back to the people, however unpopular this Government may have become—and they are getting more unpopular every day. Finally, it is calculated to divide the nation because it raises a class issue deliberately at a time of national emergency. For that reason, it is a bad Bill, and I wish I could move, in the good old phrase of the past, "That this Bill be worn and torn," but as it is, we will do our best to oppose it. We believe the Government are digging their own graves at the same time that they imagine they are saving themselves.

5.1 p.m.

Mr. Naylor: The hon. Member for Wavertree (Mr. Raikes) suggested that the House of Lords is a paragon of virtue and progress. I challenge and deny the suggestion. I recollect certain occasions when the House of Lords was in no sense a progressive body, and when many working-class Bills passed in the House of Commons were afterwards rejected by the House of Lords. At that time, just as now, the

House of Lords was not prepared to advance with the times and recognise that the working people of the country were entitled to justice. What has been the attitude of the House of Lords to the question of the franchise? Again and again, from generation to generation, it has opposed Measures for the reform of the franchise, and yet the hon. Member suggests that the House of Lords is not an institution which stands in the way of progress.

Mr. Raikes: I was fortified in what I said by the fact that the Home Secretary had already told the House that the powers he was giving to the Second Chamber under this Bill were the maximum powers which he would give to any Second Chamber, however constituted. Therefore, presumably, he regards the present constitution as being as good as any from the point of view of this Government.

Mr. Naylor: This Bill gives no powers at all to the House of Lords. It simply reduces the suspensory veto of the Lords from two years to one year. That brings me to the consideration of the suggestion that we are making a constitutional change. I do not regard this question as being of an academic character. I do not approach it from the academic point of view, because I am a layman and not a professor at a university. I want to approach the issue from the point of view of the English language. It is remarkable that the three hon. Members who made the longest contribution on this issue of the Constitution come from the ancient seats of learning, and naturally one would wish to pay deference to the knowledge that they might be expected to possess of the history of the Constitution of this country. I would like to ask them what makes a Constitution. It seems to me that an alteration of the Constitution means a constructive part of the institution which is to have its particular powers curtailed or taken away by this new legislation. In fact, the Constitution is not being touched at all. Surely, it is not suggested that the mere alteration of the suspensory veto from two years to one year is an alteration of the Constitution. The English language is not being strained too much when we say that there is no alteration of the Constitution.

ROYAL ASSENT

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having retuined—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Expiring Laws Continuance Act, 1947.
2. Jersey and Guernsey (Financial Provisions) Act, 1947.
3. Burma Independence Act, 1947.
4. New Zealand Constitution (Amendment) Act, 1947.
5. Ministers of the Crown (Treasury Secretaries) Act, 1947.
6. Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Act, 1947.
7. Ceylon Independence Act, 1947.
8. Mandated and Trust Territories Act, 1947.
9. Stornoway Harbour Order Confirmation Act, 1947.
10. Edinburgh Merchant Company Widows' Fund (Amendment) Order Confirmation Act, 1947.

PARLIAMENT BILL

Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

5.17 p.m.

Mr. Naylor: When I heard that knock at the door, Mr. Speaker, I was afraid that I had committed some great indiscretion. I was expecting that the other place had sent for me. I was, at the time, trying to show that the mere alteration of the time limit of the suspensory veto was not an alteration of the Constitution because it did not affect the structure of the Constitution.
Hon. Members opposite have been using arguments that were used in 1911, when the Parliament Act was passed. Those arguments were legitimate at that time because the Parliament Act was undoubtedly an interference with and an alteration in the Constitution. Not even the university representatives need be told now that the position is entirely different in this respect that the alteration in the Constitution was made in 1911 and implemented in the Act passed at that time.
The alteration that the Bill proposes can only by a stretch of the meaning of the

English language be described as an alteration of the Constitution. Hon. Members opposite have been brooding over the Bill to such an extent as to justify me in misquoting a line from "Hamlet": "There is nothing either good or bad but brooding makes it so." They have been thinking and brooding over the Bill until now they think it is the acme of evil, so far as legislation and the Constitution are concerned.
This is the Third Reading of the Bill and I do not want to go outside its provisions, but some hon. Members have referred to the possibility of a real reform of the House of Lords. The opportunity may come some day, not far distant, when that reform will be brought forward by a Government of this party, even though it may not be in this Parliament. As this happens to be the last Parliament in which I shall sit, I conclude by asking my hon. Friends to keep this question of the reform and reconstitution of the House of Lords constantly to the fore. Even though it may not be possible to achieve that reform in the present Parliament—it may not even he desirable to attempt it—yet the time must come in the next Parliament when the Labour Government, re-elected by the votes of the people, will be able to lay down that the House of Lords must give way either to a reformed Second Chamber or be obliterated altogether—which would be, of course, rather severe treatment after their long service. In any case, we must ensure that the voice of the people, as expressed through this House of Commons, must prevail over any other institution in the State.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. Maclay: May I reassure the House at once that I shall not attempt this evening any detailed study of the constitutional issue involved in the Bill we are now discussing. What I am anxious to do, as a humble searcher after wisdom and always hoping for truth, is to try to see what has happened while this Bill has been before the House, because I have felt very strongly, certainly not for the first time in this Parliament, that it is not so much what is in the Bill that matters as what is the real intention of the Government in putting the Bill before us. May I refer to one other Measure about which I had that feeling, the Supplies and Services (Transitional


Powers) Act, at that time put forward as a simple little Bill—the Home Secretary is wondering whether I am in Order, but I do think it is a legitimate point—

Mr. Ede: I will leave that to the Chair.

Mr. Maclay: I saw the Home Secretary's eyes wandering in the direction of the Chair, and I thought there might be something in it. As the eye of the Chair is now firmly upon me, I will leave that Measure and get back to this Bill. Why is the Bill brought before us? There is general agreement that it is not a great Measure of reform. If it were, a remarkable range of views on that subject would be expressed by my hon. Friends sitting below me to the Lord President of the Council, since they and he are a very long distance apart in what they think should happen. But there is general agreement that the Bill has nothing to do with that. It is described as an important constitutional issue. The Lord President said so on the Second Reading and the discussion all through was on why it is an important constitutional issue.
Then one goes back to the question: Is there any need for a great constitutional issue to arise at this time in this House? Was the doing away or the tampering with our constitutional system the real reason for it? I was glad to see in his place the hon. and learned Member for Llandaff and Barry (Mr. Ungoed-Thomas) because he was the person who said more clearly than anyone else, or gave us a clue, what this Bill was about. There is now no confusion on the facts—this Bill is about iron and steel.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: Is not that the conclusion of the Opposition too?

Mr. Maclay: I do not think that bears the slightest relation. I am a humble searcher after truth and wisdom, for the facts as they are.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: The hon. Gentleman burkes an answer.

Mr. Maclay: I would not think of burking an answer if the hon. and learned Member would put the question in a form that I could understand. If that is the issue, we come to the conclusion, which is unassailable, that the sole purpose of this Bill must be that the Government

have very good reasons to fear that if the country had an opportunity of expressing its views on iron and steel once more, the answer would not be the one for which the Government think they have a mandate. We really cannot go beyond that. All through this discussion there has been this strange assumption of controversy between the two Houses for which I do not think anything in the history of the last two years gives any justification. Therefore, are the Government assuming that something will happen in the future? If that assumption is true, it must be because on this Bill the House of Lords will fulfil its proper function of seeing that it protects the will of the people and not the will of the Government of the day.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. Awbery: The last speaker dealt with a hypothetical question when he spoke of what he thinks is the reason for the introduction of this Bill by the Government. He did not deal with the Bill at all. Since this Bill has been before the House I have had an opportunity of speaking to some very fine democrats, and they expressed the opinion that the Government are not going far or fast enough in dealing with what they consider an anomaly in our democratic Constitution. They can understand the argument which has been put up by various Members today for a Second Chamber which is a revising Chamber, but they cannot understand for the life of them why that Second Chamber should have an absolute veto to prevent the will of the people being placed upon the Statute Book whether it be after two years, one year, six months, or one month. That power should not rest in the hands of an unelected and undemocratic body.
The 1911 Act has been recalled, and it is necessary to draw a comparison between 1911 and 1947 and to see how far we have advanced in that period. In 1910 the Liberal Government fought an election and won a magnificent victory on the abolition of the veto. In 1911 they introduced the Bill into this House for the restriction, not the abolition, of the veto. Today, in 1947, 36 years afterwards, we are not even abolishing the veto; we are restricting the restriction placed on the veto in 1911. If we go on at this speed, reducing the three years to two in 36 years, then it will take us


until A.D. 2019 before we get back to where the Liberals were in 1910—the abolition of the veto.

Mr. Osborne: Socialist progress.

Mr. Awbery: The Government, instead of starting a new book in the political history of this country are not even turning over a new leaf. We shall be, even when this Bill is passed, impotent to place on the Statute Book the pledges we gave to the people at the General Election. I know that we have been told we have no mandate. Nor have we a mandate for the revision of the House of Lords, but the Opposition have agreed to meet with us and with the Government to discuss reorganisation of the House of Lords; and yet there has been no mandate for that. Then we were accused on the Second Reading of folly, of fraud, of tinkering with the Constitution, and of social aggression; and today we have been told that the Bill is not a big Bill but a petty Bill, a tinkering Bill that is not going to do anything at all.
In 1911 we were promised by the then Home Secretary, when he introduced the Measure for the restriction of the power of the House of Lords, that that would not be the final act as far as the veto was concerned. He said that we must end the veto once and for all, and he promised to introduce a Bill to effect that. However, we have waited 36 years for the Bill to come, and we have not yet had it. There is among the democrats of this country a feeling of frustration that nothing has been done. It may be argued that the power of the House of Lords is not very large, but the then Home Secretary, in Committee on the Bill of 1911, said:
We have never disguised from ourselves … the fact that the powers which the House of Lords will possess when this Bill is passed into law are very great and substantial powers, and if they were vexatiously used, that is to say in that partisan spirit which has characterised the action of that House in recent times, they would undoubtedly impose severe disabilities and disadvantages against the present Government, and probably any democratic Government, from which the Governments which are returned by Conservative majorities would be wholly exempt"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th April, 1911; Vol. 24, c. 1702–3.]

Mr. Baxter: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me? He said just now that since 1911 he and his democrat friends—whoever they may be—have felt a sense of

frustration. Can he tell us that he really has felt from 1911 to 1947 a really personal sense of frustration—all this time?

Mr. Awbery: There has been little need for the bulwark of Toryism to use its powers regarding the veto during the period the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.

Mr. Baxter: Then why the feeling of frustration?

Mr. Awbery: The feeling of frustration arises because the Government, elected by the people to place their programme upon the Statute Book, may be prevented from doing so by the action of the House of Lords. People feel that this veto should be removed. Until it is removed there will be a feeling of frustration. It has been argued that the House of Lords has not used its powers. In 1906 a Liberal Government was returned, and for three years the veto of the House of Lords was used. In 1908 they turned down the Licensing Bill, which had taken the whole of the 1908 Session of this House.
That latent power, which has been dormant for so many years, may arise a t any moment. It may arise at a critical time in the life of this Government, when they are dealing with a particular problem. We are trying to prevent that from taking place. What this Bill does is to wipe out part of the blot that has dishonoured this free and democratic people. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] When the Liberals came back in 1910 the Tories accused them—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The recitation of all these historical facts cannot possibly be relevant to the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Awbery: I regret that I have deviated from the Rules of Order in dealing with this, but I thought it rather important that we should know the historical developments from 1911 to 1947.
After this Bill has passed we shall still be in the position that we can legislate for only four years. The Tory Party can go to the electorate and say, "If you elect us, we can legislate unhampered, and place our legislation on the Statute Book for five years; but if you send the Labour Party back they will be able only for four years to legislate, because we can persuade the House of Lords not to pass


the legislation of a Labour Government." They will say, "If we are defeated at the polls, then we can fall back on the peers to help us. We can always use the other House." That was described by the Home Secretary in 1911 as being of the Tory Party:
… the modus operandi of the new form of political warfare."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 22nd February, 1911; Vol. 21, C. 2025.]
Since then we have moved on very considerably. I feel, as I move among the working people, that we are not where we were in 1911. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite would like to put us where we were in 1911, but we are not going back to 1911: we are going on. The workers now are more articulate than they have ever been.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to apply his remarks to this Bill, the main purpose of which is the substitution for the words, "in three successive sessions" and "two years" of the words "in two successive sessions" and "one year," repectively.

Mr. Baxter: Could we ask the hon. Member to get up to about 1925?

Mr. Awbery: I will deal with 1947. It is necessary that the workers should remember where they were in 1911, compared with where they are now. The power of the trade union movement is growing very considerably; education has played an important part in the working-class movement; the Labour power is becoming greater than ever before—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am afraid I shall be obliged to ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat unless his remarks are more directly relevant to the Third Reading of the Bill. The only question today is whether the Bill, in the form in which it appears before the House, is to be passed or not.

Mr. Awbery: My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Southwark (Mr. Naylor), who was the last to speak from this side of the House, talked about the developments that are to follow this Bill; and in following his argument all I want to say is that this Bill is not the end of the question of the House of Lords. This side of the House looks upon this Bill as the beginning of the end. When we are—as we shall be—returned after the

next General Election, I hope that the Government will decide to deal with the policy and principle of the House of Lords in a more realistic way than we are dealing with it in this Bill.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: I shall not endeavour to dwell so long in the year 1911 as did the hon. Member for Central Bristol (Mr. Awbery). He contrasted the situation of that time with that obtaining today, but the real difference is that in 1911 the Liberal Government were faced with an actual act of veto by the House of Lords, and Mr. Asquith's Government at that time had to deal with it. Therefore, the situations are not really parallel in any way. However, I will not detain the House further on that. I intend to be both blunt and brief, because I know other hon. Members intend to speak.
Today, we have had two or three speeches which were more significant than they may have seemed at the time to those who listened to them. Whenever there is a revolutionary process in any country, the strong men must have their "stooges." That is a rather commonplace word of modern usage, but the strong men must have their "stooges."

Mr. Emrys Hughes: So does Lord Beaverbrook.

Mr. Baxter: I probably know more about Lord Beaverbrook than anybody in this House, and in describing him, I would offer the entire dictionary, but not the word "stooge"; almost any other word might apply.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: The hon. Member introduced the word.

Mr. Baxter: I am not defending it, but it is not a word which applies to that dynamic character. [Interruption.] I wanted to be both blunt and brief, but if there are too many interruptions I shall not be able to carry out my intention.
Today, we had a speech from the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. W. Wells), in whom we have the type of man who has been found in every revolutionary movement in every country; the man with the Oxford Group smile, the gentle—

Mr. W. Wells: I suggest that the hon. Member should keep religion out of it.

Mr. Baxter: I do not wish to interfere with the religious views of the hon. Member. He has a smile which I have seen in many Oxford Groups; they are always there. We have also heard from the Home Secretary. Which of us would not trust his wife or daughter with the Home Secretary?

Mr. Turner-Samuels: That is not in the Bill.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: Nor relevant.

Mr. Baxter: Please! I still wish to be both blunt and brief. The Home Secretary exudes confidence—

Mr. Turner-Samuels: On a point of Order. This Bill does not ask the House—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I assume that the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) is relating his remarks to the Bill, and he must be given a reasonable opportunity of doing so without undue interruption.

Mr. Baxter: The hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) has not heard any of the other speeches which have been made this afternoon. I have been here throughout the Debate.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I am sure the hon. Member does not wish to misrepresent the position. I have been sitting here practically the whole afternoon.

Mr. Baxter: I have heard every speech in the Debate today, and everything I have said so far has been related to one speech or another. If the hon. and learned Member also heard them, then his interruption is more foolish than I would have otherwise thought, because the Home Secretary and other hon. Members have spoken on these lines.
When the King's Speech was debated in this House—and this has very much to do with the Bill under discussion—the Prime Minister announced, with great fairness, that the iron and steel industry would be nationalised. Let there be no doubt but that he intended that, and made it quite clear. Then the next day, or two days after—I cannot remember which—the then Minister of Economic Affairs absolutely flouted everything the Prime Minister had said. He said, in effect—

Mr. Turner-Samuels: What has this to do with this Bill?

Mr. Baxter: This Bill has to do with iron and steel. Nobody doubts that.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This Bill has nothing to do with the merits of the iron and steel question at all. Whatever may have been the position on the Second Reading, it certainly is not in order to discuss that subject on Third Reading. I am sorry, but I am afraid that question cannot be gone into. The hon. Member must speak to the Bill.

Mr. Baxter: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I have always found you so just and reasonable that I would not lightly question your Ruling, but many times this afternoon iron and steel have been mentioned, and I cannot believe that I alone must not mention it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I quite agree that iron and steel may have been mentioned, but that is all. We cannot go into the merits of the iron and steel question, which is what I understood the hon. Member was proceeding to do when he said the Bill had to do with iron and steel.

Mr. Baxter: No, my only point was this. Today, the Government are bringing forward a Measure to cut the powers of the House of Lords, which is we believe—and, indeed, as some hon. Members opposite have said—for the purpose of carrying through a Bill which will probably not secure the support of the House of Lords. We are faced with the strange situation that the Prime Minister announced that it should be done, whereas the Minister for Economic Affairs praised the industry beyond words as the finest example of private enterprise. He did not use those words, but that is what he implied. We on this side of the House believe that it is not the wish of the country that this Measure should be carried through. Only the other day the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) said that the members of the iron and steel industry, including the workers, are doing everything in their power by working hard to prevent the nationalisation of that industry. I have nothing further to say but this—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—Despite their jeers hon. Members will hear duller speeches than mine.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Not many.

Mr. Baxter: It seems that the Government, under the merciless direction of the Lord President—who personally has nothing to do with this at all, but is having his way—are determined on this. The Government realise that neither the country nor the House of Lords, as the presiding Upper Chamber, desire this Bill. The whole Bill is really a test of strength; it is a determination on the part of the Government to use this excuse to carry through, not a reform of the House of Lords—with which so many of us would agree—but to cut off the powers of the House of Lords.
I know that to compare the present Government with the Hitler régime; is not popular, and not altogether fair in many ways. Nobody can see in the Home Secretary a Himmler; nobody can see in the Lord President a Goebbels. Nevertheless, I see in many hon. Members opposite the intermediate mentality which have made every revolution possible. Before Lenin must come Kerensky; before Hitler must come the Weimar Republic—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Those questions really do not arise on the Third Reading of this or any other Bill. I am sorry, but that must be so.

Mr. Baxter: Even if you rule me out of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I must point out that today we are considering a Bill to limit the power of Parliament as we know it. [HON. MEMBERS: No."] It is, indeed. Yet, Sir, you say that on Third Reading, I, as a Member of Parliament, am not allowed to say that this Measure limits the power of the Upper Chamber until it is futile and useless. With great respect, I believe your Ruling to be wrong.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I never gave, and I should not think of giving, any such Ruling. What I took exception to was the hon. Member's reference to Kerensky, Lenin, Weimar and other quite extraneous matters.

Mr. Baxter: If you are to rule, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that we in these islands can only refer to our own mistakes, and not to the mistakes of other countries, then I say that what may happen here is what has happened in other countries. May I ask for your guidance? If we have been more fortunate than other countries, and have enjoyed many years

of Conservative democratic rule, are we not allowed to look at other countries to see what has happened there? However, I will not press that point.
The Lord President of the Council and his colleagues have not dealt with what they should have dealt with, namely, the reconstruction of the House of Lords. Instead, the first thing that was done under the Lord President's leadership was the denigration of the Press, the limitation of the powers and freedom of the Press. Now comes the, limitation of the powers of the Upper House. I say to all those Members opposite, who accept this merely as a useful Measure to show their power, that they are playing the game of a stronger Left-Wing Government than we have at the present time. My concluding sentence is this: These are the Kerenskys ordaining the future which is to come upon us.

5.51 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: After the confusing and irrelevant arguments of the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter), it is very difficult to think that the Opposition can really be serious in asking the House to regard this as an important constitutional question which they should divide against. If that is the best argument which can be put forward against this Bill, it shows that this Measure has been introduced to the general satisfaction of the country. Nothing is more significant than the very curious change of attitude of the Opposition towards this Bill since it was introduced. When it was announced, we were told by the Leader of the Opposition, and by numerous Members from the Opposition, that this was a most serious Measure, and that it would divide the country and distract attention from the urgent tasks of production and the export drive. Whatever were its merits, we were told that this was not the time to introduce this Bill. It is quite clear that that attitude is no longer maintained by hon. Members opposite.
There is no evidence that this Bill is dividing the country, or that it is adversely affecting production and the export drive. On the contrary, it is all the more significant that since the Government introduced the Bill, the production figures have increased. We have had the best results in the mines for seven years, and


we have had the best figures for production in many other industries. The truth is that the Opposition entirely misjudged the temper of the people when they thought that this Bill would provoke a constitutional Crisis, or that, it would detract the attention of the people from the urgent economic crisis. Hon. Members opposite departed from that attitude during the Committee stage.
The only serious point which has emerged since the Second Reading Debate—and it was repeated again today by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler)—is that there is something contrary to all precedent in a Bill which affects the constitution being made retrospective, or having retro-active operation. I wish to deal with that point. First of all, I do not accept the view that this House is precluded from doing anything because there is no precedent for it. That has never been part of our Constitution. If a Measure is meritorious in itself, it does not require a precedent. I was challenged by several Members, including the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), the senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter), and the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) to produce an instance of an important constitutional change having retrospective effect. They said that it was all very well to make a constitutional change for the future, but if it was retrospective, then it was contrary to all precedent.
I have found a precedent for those who challenged me, and it will be seen that that is of far more significance than this Bill. In 1716, the law was that Parliaments should not last for more than three years. There had to be a new Parliament every three years, but the Septennial Act of 1716 provided that not only should all future Parliaments last for seven years, but that the existing Parliament, which had been elected for a three-year period, should also last for seven years. In other words, the Septennial Act altered the whole balance of power between the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and contained very significant retrospective provisions.

Mr. Pickthorn: Read the Act.

Mr. Fletcher: Hon. Members will have an opportunity to dispute the facts, but as there seem to be some doubts, I will quote what a very distinguished historian, Professor Dicey, had to say about it. He said:
The peculiarity of the Act was not that it changed the legal duration of Parliament or repealed the Triennial Act; the mere passing of a Septennial Act in 1716 was not and would never have been thought to be anything more startling or open to graver censure than the passing of the Triennial Act in 1694. What was startling was that an existing Parliament of its own authority prolonged its own legal existence.
By doing so, it effected a change in the constitutional balance as between the House of Commons and the House of Lords, by giving the House of Commons greater independence, greater security, greater tenure. It gave the House of Commons greater power vis-a-vis the House of Lords—

Sir Arthur Salter: The Act to which the hon. Member has just referred was obviously retrospective in quite a different sense, and was introduced at a time of imminent war. Further, is it not a fact—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Young): The' right hon. Gentleman cannot now make a speech.

Mr. Fletcher: If there was national danger it would have been competent for Parliament to extend its life for one year as was done during the recent war. But that was not a parallel case. Here, the Constitution was being changed, and the life of the House of Commons was changed retrospectively from three years to seven years.
However, I want to pass from that, because I do not regard it as being of great moment except that I wanted to reply to the challenge which was thrown out on the Committee stage. The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), earlier today, in language of hyperbole, suggested, as Members opposite so often do, that those on his side of the House are the custodians of our great Constitutional traditions and heritage. I do not accept that view at all. Just as the Act of 1716 has been regarded by history as being a very wise and Statesmanlike Act, I am confident that future generations will regard us, in passing this Amendment to the Parliament Act, 1911,


as having preserved the spirit of the Constitution. Our great constitutional traditions enable us to make the changes in this way that are necessary to adapt our Constitution to the changing needs of the time. That is one of the great advantages and great merits of a flexible unwritten Constitution.
I am, therefore, convinced that this Bill, for reasons as to merit, which have been described over and over again, is sound in itself, and is a desirable constitutional change. It is reasonable and necessary that it should have retrospective operation, but that operation will only take effect if it is rejected by the House of Lords. Otherwise, there is no need for it ever to have retrospective operation. Because of that contingency it is essential that the Bill should contain that provision. I urge the House to give the Bill a Third Reading this evening.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. Henry Strauss: I shall try to deal briefly with some of the points which have been made but I want above all to say why some of us find this a shocking Measure, and believe that it is against the interests of the State and of every party in the State which cares for our democracy. I apologise for having missed the first few minutes of the Debate, and, consequently, what the Home Secretary said, and I gather that he finds me particularly suspect on two grounds—that I represent universities, and that I am also a lawyer. But it is not perhaps improper that one who is concerned with the universities and our law should try to express why some of us feel the Constitution to be extremely important.
I do not think there is anybody in any quarter of the House who really doubts that this is a Constitutional Measure. Our Constitution is what is called an unwritten Constitution although, as I shall try to show, that is not the important fact about it. There are, however, certain Statutes which are of great constitutional importance, and the Parliament Act, 1911, is one of them. Any Bill that amends that Act must be of constitutional importance. Quite irrespective of whether it is a good or bad Bill, it must be an important Bill. I know there are Members who think that con-

stitutional questions do not matter very much. I would assure them that they are wrong. They think that the welfare of their constituents depends on a number of economic Measures, and so forth, which certainly do affect them, but I believe that more fundamental to our progress, prosperity, and historic greatness have been not the occasional Measures dealing with economic and other subjects, but certain Constitutional safeguards and such great principles as the rule of law. These things matter to them much more than any of the other Measures in which we indulge.
Let me mention one matter in which I differ slightly from my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), and from a statement that has been made in one or two of the speeches made by other Members. It is the tendency to attach great importance to the question whether the Constitution is written or unwritten. That is not the most important distinction, as every student of Dicey will know. Rather more important is the distinction between rigid and flexible. Above all, the thing that is important is that we have an omnicompetent Parliament. When we have a Constitution that is as flexible, omnicompetent, and important as our Constitution is, it puts the Government of the day under the highest duty to take the utmost care in making constitutional changes. The fact that we can do anything without any such limits as other Constitutions incorporate puts on us a particular duty to be wise.
What has been the constitutional problem that has faced so many countries for so long, and which has seldom had a satisfactory solution? It is how to reconcile strong Government with the preservation of liberty. There are many who have loved liberty, but have failed to achieve strong government; there have been others who have loved strong government, but have failed to preserve liberty. The peculiar genius of the English people has been this: That they have preserved liberty, notwithstanding an omnicompetent Parliament, because we do not seek to preserve that liberty by making Governments weak but, if possible, by making them wise. That is the sort of thing we wish to preserve, and our Constitution is a great safeguard for that purpose.
Let me deal with some of the things which have been said in answer to this, and in defence of the Measure. The hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. W. Wells), who told us that he had had trouble in satisfying his university examiners—he did not reveal in which school, although parts of his speech gave me a suspicion—said that this Measure was not meant to last. That is very far from what has been said by every Front Bench speaker belonging to the Government which he supports. I ask him a question: If this Measure is not going to last, apart from an interim period, what does he say, and what do other hon. Members say, is to follow it? It may be possible honestly to support this Measure if one realises what one is doing and desires what one is doing, namely, rendering the House of Lords almost impotent. If this were admittedly the object, and hon. Members opposite had the courage to say so, better Measures could be proposed for effecting that object, but at least there would be a motive in supporting this Bill.
What I suggest is impossible, is to say that we do not believe in a Single Chamber Government, that we desire a Second Chamber, that we desire a Second Chamber which shall not be in a position, directly or indirectly, that all elected Second Chamber would enjoy, in which it would be able to rival this House, and then to support this Bill. If we say all that, the essential power we must give to the Second Chamber is the power of delay. That is the one power that is obviously essential. The power of delay which will survive when this Measure is on the Statute Book is, as has been pointed out in numerous speeches, no longer a real power at all. Suppose, however, that it were. As I have pointed out previously, under the retrospective provisions of this Measure, the one year mentioned in this Statute could be further reduced in this Parliament if it were desired to do so.
An extraordinary remark was made by the hon. Member for Walsall, who said that he had no great objection to retrospective legislation. What was the reason which he gave? He said that, after all, this House, from time to time, passed Indemnity Acts, indemnifying people from the consequences of transgression of the law; but what will occur to everyone, except possibly the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher), is that,

in that particular form of legislation, the acts which it is sought to indemnify have at least taken place, and we know what they are. The idea that the House, quite irrespective of what might have happened, without any inquiry and with the possibility of perfectly outrageous things having been done, would ipso facto pass an Indemnity Act is, of course, preposterous. The hon. Member for East Islington, for some obscure reason, thinks that the Septennial Act was retrospective. He did not read that Act to help the House nor the appropriate words of the Bill before us. I do not think that I need trouble the House either. If hon. Members will look at the actual terms of the Measure down for Third Reading, they will find the most clear sign of all in the express language of the Bill that it contains a retrospective provision
Shall be deemed to have had effect …
As I pointed out on Committee stage, the retrospective provision includes the extraordinary phrase
the Bill for this Act.
Of course, where an Act, in the lifetime of a Parliament, constitutionally changes the period of that Parliament's duration, the question whether it is a good Act or a bad Act, is a different question altogether. There is nothing retrospective about it. It may be that many citizens will be annoyed with it, and indignant for reasons analogous to those that make them indignant with retrospective legislation; but that is not retrospective, and not only do I agree with what has been said by the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) and the senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) on the last occasion—and I gave my modest support on that occasion—but I pray in aid what was expressly said by the Home Secretary, who, with all the skilled advice open to him, admitted that we were right, and that there was no precedent in a constitutional Measure for such a retrospective provision.

Mr. Gallacher: The next time a Bill of this sort is brought in there will be a precedent.

Mr. Strauss: I am very glad that after three Debates the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Gallacher) has at last grasped the point. The hon. Member is far more right than usual, and I hope that on an occasion when he is so far ahead of most


of his friends, he will not be accused of being guilty of diversion.
Another phrase that has occurred from time to time clearly shows the mentality of the Government in this matter. They constantly speak of a Government or a Parliament being elected for a term of office. A Government or a Parliament is not elected for a term of office. There are certain provisions dealing with the maximum life of a Parliament, and there are other constitutions, such as that of the United States, where the Executive is appointed for a term of office; but that is alien to our ideas. What we have is a Government which is directly responsible to this House, and the purpose of a Second Chamber, well set out in the passage from Dicey which I read on Second Reading, is to ensure that sufficient delay, where necessary, is imposed in order to ensure that the Acts of the Government responsible to the House of Commons shall also be such as represent the deliberate wish of the country—the electorate. That is the object of the powers of delay of the House of Lords—to ensure the responsibility of the Government and of this House to the electors.
For the purpose of my argument, I do not wish here to say anything about the quality of the present Government. I ask hon. Members, in whatever quarter of the House they sit, to imagine a bad and tyrannical Government in power. If we reduce the powers of delay of the House of Lords to something nugatory, then we destroy the last safeguard of the electorate. There is no safeguard of the electorate at all, except that which has been mentioned in one or two speeches in our earlier Debate—the power of revolution. The merit of our Constitution is that that has not been the only remedy in the past.
I think, as I said before on Second Reading, it is not at all a surprising thing that this Bill, which destroys the last safeguard of the electorate, is produced by a Government which has shown the greatest possible contempt for this House. This Bill virtually abolishes the one great surviving legal power of the House of Lords. If the whole House of Lords were abolished entirely, it would still be less important than the outrages which this Government have already committed on the House of Commons.
The three points to bear in mind are these. A Second Chamber is desirable in the view of the overwhelming majority of this House in every quarter, if hon. Members sincerely mean what they say. The Second Chamber that is desirable is not a Second Chamber which shall be able to compete with, or to rival, this House. If it is to be both effective and not a rival to this House, the essential power that it must possess is a power of delay. No power of delay is useful and effective which is less than the power of delay granted iby the Parliament Act, 1911. For those reasons, and because our Constitution is something worth preserving and when it is amended, ought to be amended with loving care, I support the Amendment for the rejection of this Measure.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I have listened with very great interest to the speech that has been made by the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) and he has taken a line not dissimilar to the other speeches that have come from the Opposition, which is, that whatever happens, above all we must preserve the constitutional integrity of the House of Lords. Whether the will of the people is to be carried out does not seem to matter as long as the constitutional integrity of the House of Lords is preserved. In order to support the argument that has been pursued, certain things have been said about this doctrine of retrospection. If I may say so, with respect, I agree with the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities, that the instance that was cited by the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) is not a good instance to give on the question of whether that particular Bill is open to attack because it is retrospective. What does that matter? The only point that does matter in regard to the retrospective character of the present Bill is that it is made retrospective so as to ensure that the will of the electorate will be enforced. That, so far as I am concerned, is in this Debate the chief constitutional point of all.
After all, why does Parliament exist? Parliament exists as a vehicle to carry out the will of the electorate and as soon as the House discerns that that will cannot be carried out because of some defect


then it becomes the duty of the House to put that right. That is precisely what this Bill is going to do. I put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) who put a very interesting and, if I may say so, highly fallacious point. Personally I always listen with the deepest respect to any speech which the right hon. Gentleman makes. It is always interesting, it is always scholarly and more often than not it is logical. He succeeded in the first two this afternoon, but in my humble opinion he certainly failed completely on the logical side.
The question he posed was this. He said that the Government introduced this Bill on the assumption that the House of Lords were going to be guilty of doing something before they do it. That sounds a very attractive and specious argument, but, of course, it is one thing for a person to get hold of a policeman in the street and suggest that he should arrest someone because he is quite convinced that person is going to do something which he should not. The officer might reasonably say to him, "I must not do that because the man is not guilty of anything wrong or illegal." That is not the case here. The case with which this Bill is seeking to deal is the case where one House of Parliament has got power which will enable it not only to thwart what the other House does, but to thwart the very programme and mandate upon which the other House was elected by the electorate. That is the issue. The power of one House to thwart the will of the electors.

Mr. Gallacher: And do not forget that it has a criminal record.

Sir A. Salter: Sir A. Salter rose—

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Let me finish what I am saying. That is the issue that we have here. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden then referred to the question of the veto of the House of Lords, and rightly said that the House of Lords has, in fact, no veto. All that he had observed was a suspensory power. I agree with him so far as it goes but look what he is really deluding us into thinking to be the case. It is true that as matters stand, the House of Lords merely has a suspensory power, but unless we get the power envisaged in this Parliament Bill passed

and another year goes by and we introduce a Bill that the House of Lords does not like, then it will have the very practical power of veto—it will throw the Bill out.

Mr. Pickthorn: Will hon. Gentlemen opposite never come back?

Mr. Turner-Samuels: It is not a case of we will never come back. That will not do.

Mr. Pickthorn: It is suspiciously like it.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: It is because we will have to go to the electorate and Parliament will have to come to an end, because of a veto exercised by the House of Lords, which the right hon. Gentleman says the House of Lords does not possess. The senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) has got his dogmatic views about everything, but merely calling out, "Do you mean that you will not come back again" is not going to decide this issue. I am not going to deal with that at all, because we are coming back not only the next time, but many times after it.
What I am dealing with is the specious argument that the right hon. Gentleman put forward when he said that the House of Lords has no power of veto at all, but merely has suspensory power. What I am saying is that in the next breath he is asking this House to leave the House of Lords that power to place itself at its own will and not the electors' will, in a position to veto our Bills. Hon. Members opposite cannot get away from that issue, and it does not require any dialectical skill or very much argument, because it is as plain as a pikestaff.
Let us face this issue properly. What is it exactly that the Opposition want? They want us to say, "Look here, the House of Lords have been very good fellows, they have not interfered with any Labour legislation for two years, and, therefore, why do anything to them?" Supposing, however, in the third or fourth year they start interfering with our legislation, what about it then? The right hon. Gentleman said, "That will be a great pity." We think it would be a great pity, and we are making provision to see that there will be no need for it to happen, and that we will have the legislation which will enable us to give effect


to the will of the electorate. We are not asking the House or Parliament to give effect to some novel idea which we on this side of the House have, but we are asking Parliament to enable us to give effect to the mandate we got at the hands of the electorate.

Sir A. Salter: Sir A. Salter rose—

Mr. Turner-Samuels: No, I will not give way. We are not only intending to do what we are entitled to do but are under an obligation to the electorate to do. That is what we are making good.
The right hon. Gentleman said that in doing this sort of thing we were not giving the country time to consider these Bills. He does not really mean that; he says that because he has no better argument to put in its place. Let us look at the point. We have now the period of a year. It does not matter how the period is cut up; it is a definite pause between one stage in this House and the other in the other House when the matter can be considered. The machinery of Parliament gives facilities for the fullest consideration to be applied to any legislation. A Bill goes through four stages in this House and four stages in another place. I should have thought that although a shorter period has been condemned—and I am certainly not in favour of it—even if the delay had been only six months that would have been ample, although I agree with those who say that we should have 12 months' delay in order to leave no doubt that ample time has been given.
An attempt has been made to say that this is a highly constitutional point. Any lawyer who knows anything about the Constitution knows that it is nothing of the sort. The constitutional issue was settled when the Parliament Act, 1911, was introduced. That was what changed the Constitution; this is merely a modification of what was done then. Now we have this two-year period, and what we are saying is that we find that if we are to carry out our programme as a Labour Government—the first Labour Government we have had with a majority and with power in this country—we must reduce the two years to one year. It is really a question of time. I do not know who will reply to the Debate but if it is to be a lawyer I would like him to show how this now becomes a grave constitutional issue such as we have been told.

This Bill subscribes to and respects the old principle which was accepted as modified in 1911. It leaves that principle there and all it does is to reduce the period from two years to one year. That is no constitutional issue except in the sense that it is carried out in order to give effect to the mandate of the electorate; and that is a very constitutional point and the most constitutional point of all. Therefore, I do not think that anything more need be said about it.
To summarise it, the issue is: Is the mandate of the electorate to be carried out? If we get this Bill, it can be carried out; if we do not get the Bill, it will not be carried out. We are going to see that the mandate of the electorate is carried out, and that is why I ask the House to give this Bill its Third Reading.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. Michael Astor: I do not want to follow the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels). His speech was so outrageously confused that I would be all night sifting out and straightening his points. There are two matters I want to stress. This is a short Bill and it should be quite easy to appraise, but there is one important matter which I do not understand. The Lord President has added to the confusion in my mind by stating on more than one occasion that the suspensory period of 12 months will be subject to the Second Chamber not provoking him. I take it that he does not speak from a purely personal point of view, but for the present Government. This seems an extraordinary attempt—the first attempt the Labour Government make at altering the Constitution—to upset a condition of affairs which worked perfectly well. The Government seek, in their opinion I suppose, to rationalise the powers which the peers have, and then tell them in effect that this having been done, they may not use their powers.
My second point is this. This Bill abolishes the most important function the Second Chamber has had till now of being able, in the final analysis, to refer highly controversial Bills to the electorate by means of forcing a General Election. This Bill diminishes the powers which the Second Chamber have of amending legislation. I have heard hon. Members from


the other side of the House speak in favour of the Second Chamber having powers to amend, and I do not think I have heard a single speech in this House which criticises their function in that respect; yet this Bill considerably reduces their powers to amend. It does it in this way. Members of the Government tend naturally to be far more favourable towards Amendments coming down from another place if they realise that, if Amendments which are more or less reasonable are turned down, the peers will send the Bill back, and will in fact throw it out. That is bound to be the tendency. Now that threat is removed, and consequently the effective power of having Amendments carried as a result of the work done in the Second Chamber is also reduced. It seems to me ironical that the present Government should be responsible for that state of affairs in view of the number of important Amendments which the Second Chamber have made to legislation which the Government have introduced.
The hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay), in seeking the causes for the introduction of this Bill, which are not easy to find, said that the matter had something to do with the steel Bill. I think it also has something to do with the Minister of Health and his political ambitions, and I also think that it is a fair indication that at the moment the Labour Party have no effective leadership. That is my reading of the matter. At all events, I can see that no sense of logic will prevent hon. Members on the other side of the House from going into the Division Lobby in favour of this Bill.

6.39 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I have listened to this Debate with a growing conviction that there should be some measure of capital punishment for constitutional lawyers. We have heard a great deal from the experts on the Constitution, including a long speech from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) who even brought forward the argument that constitutional issues were more important than economic issues. There has been too much of a tendency in this Debate to go back to precedents—to 1649 and so on—instead of looking forward to 1948, 1949 and 1950, towards the real economic issues which, after all,

are the important matters which affect this House.
I must confess that I listened to the Home Secretary, both in the Committee stage and in this Debate, with a growing admiration. For some time I mistook him for a good, genuine, honest, enlightened British Conservative, but my opinion of him has gone up steadily every time he has spoken. He made speeches, both on the Second Reading and in this Debate, in which be referred to precedent in a manner which I am sure would have warmed the cockles of Oliver Cromwell's heart. He asked whether the House is bound always to look for a precedent before it does the thing it knows to be right. That surely is the essential point in this Debate, and not the constitutional hair-splitting of the lawyers who have spent so much time delving into history, that they have absolutely forgotten the present and do not look to the future but are always looking back into the past.
I wish I could say that my admiration for the Lord President of the Council had increased during this Debate. The Home Secretary said that there were certain points made by some of his hon. Friends which had been dealt with appropriately by the Lord President in his reply to the Debate on the Amendments moved by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) and myself. I do not think the Lord President of the Council replied to those points at all. He rather sidetracked them. The real criticism of this Bill is not criticism from the constitutional past; it is criticism from the Left, who say that this Bill has not gone far enough, the Government should have used this opportunity to say, "This controversy is now closed," and have finished with the House of Lords for ever.
The Lord President of the Council denounced these opinions of mine, which were very orthodox opinions in the controversy of 1911, as Bolshevism, and as he warmed up during the Debate he dismissed them as Bolshevism gone mad. I would remind the Lord President that that was not an original expression of opinion, it was a phrase coined by the late Philip Snowden in a broadcast in which he attacked the hon. Members who are now so enthusiastic about retaining the power of the House of Lords. I need not remind the Government of the fate of Lord Snowden, but I fear that if the Lord President of the Council argues


in this way, if he gets constitutionalism on the brain, he will end up in the House of Lords as the Duke of Hackney or something like that.
I suggest that the real criticism of this Bill is that it is not a wholehearted Bill at all, that the Government should have used their power to abolish the House of Lords altogether. The Home Secretary said it was a Christmas box for democracy. In Scotland we do not regard Christmas as such an important institution; we pay rather more attention to the New Year. I wish that in his reply the Home Secretary would say, "We will give Scotland a New Year's gift as well as a Christmas box," tell us that he has been convinced by my arguments, and announce that he will abolish the House of Lords altogether.

6.44 p.m.

Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: I cannot promise the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) that any remarks of mine will bring him nearer a happier Hogmanay, but I should like, before I sum up the views of myself and my hon. Friends on this matter, to cull a few flowers from the Debate, especially as exemplified by the other side. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary began with a robust sneer at lawyers in general—

Mr. Ede: I am sorry that I was misunderstood. I was alluding to the fact that no one other than a lawyer or a Member for the Universities took part. I was deploring the lack of interest on the part of non-lawyers and non-University Members on the other side.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The right hon. Gentleman need not think for a moment that, even if I took it to be an animadversion against lawyers in general, it worried me at all, but I do not suppose for a moment that he meant that. I was just about to point out that, after his expression of regret that on the Committee stage the proportion of lawyers had been so high, the right hon. Gentleman has been followed this afternoon by six of his own supporters, three of whom were lawyers doing their best, as is always said of me, in speaking to a bad brief.
Passing lightly over that support given to the right hon. Gentleman, the hon.

Member for Walsall (Mr. W. Wells) placed the sheet anchor of his defence in retrospective legislation, and pointed out that this House sometimes indulges in retrospective legislation in order to pass an Indemnity Bill. In my view, an Indemnity Bill is the worst kind of Bill that any legislative assembly can pass. It covers, to say the least of it, inefficiency and slovenly administration and wrongdoing, and if that is to be the support for retrospective legislation, it will not take us very far. The hon. Member for South-East Southwark (Mr. Naylor), I was glad to note, said that he would do his best, and encourage everyone else to do so, to keep the reform of the House of Lords before the people. The last thing I would do would be to cross the confines between a Third Reading and a Second Reading Debate and, therefore, I leave that point, with my good wishes, to the hon. Member for South-East Southwark, with this addition, that he will tack on to what he will constantly urge on the electorate, the question of the composition of a Second Chamber and bring up that matter.
The hon. Member for Central Bristol (Mr. Awbery) said he would not give an absolute veto even for a month. I do not want to be technical about it, so I will take the substance of what he meant, which was obviously a delaying power of a month to an unelected body. Again, I do not want to go into what would be out of Order at this stage, but I point out to the hon. Gentleman in all sincerity, that if you can get agreement, if you use the method of trying to get agreement between different parts of the House, that is one of the acknowledged and right ways of making, not only constitutional changes, but advances in our constitutional practice by general agreement, for which no mandate is necessary.
Another of the legal profession—I almost dare not mention him—the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) defended the retroactive proposals on the ground of the Septennial Act. If the hon. Gentleman in the course of his future writings, speeches, or in any other way, will demonstrate to myself or any other lawyer—including, of course, the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) who has already destroyed this point, and therefore assisted me in that way—how the Septennial Act is retroactive, he will have written a new


page in constitutional law which will make his name lustrous in that starry sphere. In view of that the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester should really get off lightly in this short résumé of mine, but I beg hall once again to face that great dilemma. The 1911 Act, which this Measure seeks to amend, made special provision for the power to continue after a General Election. How the hon. and learned Gentleman can complain that the Government may have to face a General Election, and at the same time say that he is not afraid of the result of that General Election, is an inescapable dilemma from whose horns he has certainly not convinced me, nor, I think, anyone else, that he has managed to provide an escape
I have endeavoured to deal with the main points made by each speaker from the opposite side of the House, and I do not want to detain the House for long in dealing with the principal matters which have emerged. The first point which comes up is whether the proper delaying period should be two years or one year. I do not think there is any disagreement—I have not heard any hon. Gentleman on either side suggest to the contrary—that the criterion for deciding what is the proper period of delay is whether it is sufficient to allow public opinion to crystallise on the Measure. I should add that it ought to ensure that the House of Lords will have ample opportunity to appreciate what is public opinion. I put it, again in language which was agreed by all three parties before the Bryce Inquiry, that the test is:
The interposition of so much delay (and no more) in the passing of a Bill into law as may be needed to enable the opinion of the nation to be adequately expressed upon it
That is the test to which I address myself now. It is quite clear from our Debates that the one year which is suggested in the Bill means, in fact, six months. I was very interested to see that that point was conceded, as the Lord President of the Council will remember, by the two hon. Members who moved and seconded an Amendment to reduce the time to six months. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that their argument was that in any case it takes six months to get a Bill through this House, and that therefore if we reduced the time to six months, we would, in effect, be eradicating the delaying period altogether. It is common

ground, that in the case of a heavy Bill, which covers a considerable field, it takes six months to get it through this House.
I want hon. Members to consider the point, because the Home Secretary raised it in the extremely brief exposition with which he favoured us this afternoon, of what is the time at which one ought to consider opinion being focused? Is it on Second Reading, or is it when a Bill comes through the Report stage, and is in its final form, and ready to go to another place? I ask the right hon. Gentleman, or anyone else who has considered this point, to take, for example, the Transport Bill, which came to us roughly a year ago. Great parts of that Bill were unworkable gibberish when it came to this House. The whole of the provisions in regard to stockholders, and in regard to technical points, were completely unworkable, as was recognised immediately the Bill went upstairs, and they had to be radically altered. In addition, that Bill, which I take as an example, contained a great deal of padding, which was in the Bill for the purpose of jettisoning if that were necessary. There was the question of the restriction on "C" licences, which was jettisoned before the point was even debated in Committee.
It is not right to ask people to judge on the way the Bill comes in when it is printed for this House. In the Committee stage great alterations are made, and great improvements are made by the Government. Such alterations are made as the Opposition can persuade the Government to make, and it is only when the Bill comes to Report stage when, as everyone agrees, effect is given to promises made in Committee, that we get the Bill in its final form. We say that is the critical time. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the Press contains articles on the principles of the Bill, but it does not, and cannot, deal with the ultimate proposals in the Bill until after every concession has been made and it has come to its final form. That happens, in the case of a complicated Bill, somewhere about May, six months after it is introduced. It goes to the House of Lords and is discussed, even if it is rejected out of hand. From the point of view of argument, say, it is rejected in June. By having a new Session in September, the Government


can quite easily arrange that all the stages of its second journey will take place by the anniversary of its introduction in November.
That means that we have a period of delay of something like five months in which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), pointed out, a couple of months are part of the year when, in the ordinary way, people do not address their minds to abstruse political problems. We say—and I ask right hon. and hon. Members opposite to face the point, and to answer it—that such a delay as that is virtually Single Chamber government. Call it what we like, it is in effect so little delay that neither can public opinion crystallise, nor can the Second Chamber realise, not only what is in the Bill, but what is the true state of public opinion upon it.
Again, I wish to put a point which is necessary and implied in the Bill, and is not an inch beyond it. We have to ask ourselves, would a House of Lords without the power to delay for two years, but with a power which comes down, as I have shown, to a power of actual and practical delay of something under six months, be a good revising Chamber? Do not let us be hypocritical on this point, but face up to the realities of the situation. We all agree that the House of Lords has done admirable work as a revising Chamber for the last two years. I shall not again inflict on the House the summary of the Amendments of which I spoke on Second Reading, because no one has disputed that, or suggested anything to the contrary.
What is revising work? This can be looked at from three different points of view. Again, I hope I have the House with me in this. First, there is the general question of principle. Secondly, there is what I call, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman appreciates my argument, the secondary policy point. "C" licence restrictions would be a point like that—not a point of principle, but an important point of secondary policy. Then, thirdly, there are points of detail. Apart from points of detail—and I concede that a lot of useful work is done by improving details—there are matters of secondary policy in which the House of Lords has made alterations, and later those alterations have been accepted with approval

by the Government's representative during the last two years. Would the House of Lords have the slightest chance of getting these alterations and points of that kind accepted if it had not the power of two years delay behind it? Everyone knows the phrase which, from being rather an epigram, has become a commonplace, that "All power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Everyone knows that if, at bottom, a Second Chamber has not got, behind what it does, some ability to hold up the Government, and in that way impress its point of view, it would not be likely to provide, and we should not get, the admirable results of revision which everyone admits we have had during the past two years.
I do not want to go into the retroactive point, not because I fear any aspect of the argument, but because we occupied some three hours in discussing that point only a week ago, and, therefore, it seems rather inexcusable to go over the same ground again. I have put my point, and for the benefit of those hon. Gentlemen who were not present at the Committee stage, I only wish to state it. My main objection is—and I am not for the moment dealing with the point which I raised on Second Reading as to the political position of steel nationalisation—I am dealing with this Bill—that this provision means that certainly the steel Bill, and it may be other Bills, is intended to be carried in the pocket of this Bill, a new form of kangaroo procedure. The two Bills become so intimately connected that it is impossible for anyone to judge and to form their opinion on the merits of this Bill without knowing what are to be the merits of the Bill or Bills which are carried along with it. I developed that point only a week ago during the Committee stage, and I do not want to put it again, but that, apart from the impropriety of making constitutional changes by retroactive means, and apart from my general objection to retroactive Measures, would, in my view, make that provision in the Bill objectionable, and the Bill worthy of rejection.
I wish to deal with a point which has been raised by several hon. Members opposite, namely, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) said that this was an important Bill, and that other people have put it the other way and used language to different


effect. I suggest that what has happened is that when this Bill started it seemed to be a good thing to fly the particular kite of a "Peers against the People" controversy, but it is an old aphorism that a man cannot be too careful in the choice of his enemies. It soon appeared that any attempt to make party capital out of the position and actions of the House of Lords today was non-existent, and was bound to fail. Since then we have had the Bill commended, not as a means of attacking the House of Lords, but as something which is of small effect, and the tempo has decreased correspondingly. That does not mean that my right hon. Friend or any of us were wrong in saying that it is an important matter. It is an important matter to change from two-Chamber to what is practically a unicameral form of Government, to prevent adequate revision and adequate delay, and the adequate formation of opinion on the great questions of the day. These are important matters, and they remain important. What has been a complete fiasco and failure has been the attempt to arouse any class feeling, or to distract attention from the greater problems of the day, by an attack on the House of Lords, however it be constituted.
I wish to deal with the fundamental attitude of mind underlying the Home Secretary's somewhat dreadful and contemptuous rejection of precedent or the importance of our Constitution. We answer that, and we are quite prepared, and always will be prepared, to stand by our faith. We believe that people who advocate a change should prove the need for that change. That is a tenet of which none of us on this side of the House is ashamed, and by which we are prepared to stand. Whatever else has transpired in these Debates, nobody has pretended that a case has been made, on the past actions of the House of Lords, for this change which is proposed in the Bill. The most that can be said is, "We have a fear, baseless in the present, which may arise in the future."
I put this to the Home Secretary, when he is tempted again to dismiss precedents for the working of our Constitution in so cavalier, or rather, I should say, so Roundhead a manner: a long time ago—I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for putting forward anything which is 200

years old—Lord Chatham said what I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider to be the very wise words—"I invoke the genius of the Constitution." Lord Chatham did not formalise his remark; he was not dealing in formalities, he was thinking and invoking, on that great occasion, the genius of our Constitution and the way in which our Constitution was working, and could work. If one may compare a small person with a great one—I speak for myself—that is how I view it today. The genius of our Constitution works out by the attempt to get inter-party agreement, to work towards improvement by the interplay of minds, which may disagree on many matters, but which are ready to try to work together, in order to get improvements in this great machinery of government which we have constructed.
That is why I join in the regret expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden that the Government have not seen fit to follow that course, and, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, have not in the past considered such things as the appointment of life peers, which could fruitfully have been looked at in a situation like the present to answer the very difficulties which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have brought out. That course has been ignored. There has been substituted for it a method of approach which really means that, for all practical effect, single-Chamber Government is constituted, and the power of revision and delay is taken away. That, we think, is as inefficient as it is wrong, and that we shall oppose by voting against this Bill tonight.

7.11 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Although we often disagree with the view expressed by the right hon. and Yearned Gentleman the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe), we always listen to him with pleasure, because he exudes an atmosphere of reasonableness and of argument, which is always worthy of consideration, even though it may not be acceptable to us. On this historic occasion—I hope it is that, and I will have something to say about that later—of parting with this Bill on the occasion of its Third Reading, we have listened to him with a good deal of pleasure. He has said that those who


advocate change should prove the case for the change. It is not an unfair argument. I do not dispute it. It is the same as I have used—that the nationalisers should prove the case for nationalisation and the anti-nationalisers should prove that their way is better than the nationalisers'. It is a perfectly fair point for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to make.
With respect, however, we have really met the point. The onus was not upon us to prove that during the present Parliament their Lordships had been positively mischievous to such an extent that it was essential to do something about it. That is not the basis upon which the case for this Bill rests. The case rests upon the belief of His Majesty's Government that we have the right, by suitable legislation, to make such provisions as will enable us to carry out in this Parliament the policy upon which we were elected by the people in 1945. That is all that there is to it. I do not want to argue whether or not their Lordships have behaved reasonably well up to now. I could pick holes here and there and make some criticisms, as I have done during earlier stages of this Bill. But I certainly would not argue that they have gone wildly beyond the limits of what is reasonable—not at all. Things might have been much worse. Indeed, I say quite freely now, and I have said it before, that I have a considerable respect for their Lordships' Chamber as a revising element of the whole Parliamentary institution.
I say that looking apprehensively at my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) who, having already elevated me to a dukedom will, if I am not careful, elevate me to the status of a Prince of the Blood Royal. It is the case that the House of Lords is a very good revising Chamber and that from time to time they have good and informed Debates on matters of public interest. My first Parliamentary experience as a Minister of the Crown was in connection with the Road Traffic Act of 1930. That taught me so much about Standing Committee procedure upstairs that it has had its result in the Standing Orders of this House during this Parliament. Having worked for four months with that Committee upstairs, I know what silly, foolish obstruction went on. On that occasion the purpose was not

even obstruction of the Bill before that Committee, but obstruction of the next one. Having had that experience, I then watched my noble Friend, Earl Russell, who was my Parliamentary Secretary, in the other place. Amendments were put down and Earl Russell would get up and say, more or less, "This will not do," and prove it in about six sentences. In practically every case the Amendments were, by leave, withdrawn; whereas in the Commons Committee upstairs talk would go on for an hour, or even three or four.
I am not grumbling at the House of Commons. It is in the nature of this House that it does these little things; but I am bound to say, that this being my first visit to the House of Lords on a Bill which I knew, and which was, indeed, my child, I was tempted to make the most flattering observations about the expedition and the business-like character of their Lordships, compared with the procedure of the House of Commons on that Standing Committee. I ask the hon. Member for South Ayrshire to forgive me. I am one of those people who cannot but tell the objective truth in me even though it leads to his implied rebuke.
The point now before the House is not whether the other place have done enough to warrant some legislation being introduced. We said at the election that we would not tolerate obstruction by the House of Lords. It really is a foolish idea, an innocent idea, that we have to wait to be obstructed. If we wait long enough to be obstructed, we shall wait so long that the essentials of the rest of the legislative work of this Parliament may be completely ruined. The argument is that we must wait until that has happened and then start dealing with their Lordships' House. That is not the way to conduct battle, whether political or otherwise. The way to conduct battle is to see trouble coming and to avoid it, to prevent it. That is the policy of His Majesty's Government in this, as in all other respects.
How often the Opposition have said to us, "Why didn't you see this trouble coming?" even when they never dreamt it was coming themselves. How often have they said, "You ought to have seen this fatality coming along"—whether it was dollars or the bad weather of last winter. I do not in any case admit their charges. Why is it then on this occasion


when, in our profound political knowledge and wisdom, we do see trouble coming that they now say, "That is a very naughty thing?" The Opposition say, "Why look for trouble that has not occurred? Why not ignore these possibilities and go along in blissful and peaceful ignorance?" No, Sir, this is a pod Government. This is a Government that looks ahead and sees the shape of things to come—even looks ahead and sees the shape of things that may be to come.
That is what this Bill is about. It is perfectly legitimate and proper. It is all within the electoral Mandate, absolutely respectable, constitutional, and above board. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, like others, has said that this Bill is a virtual reduction from two-Chamber to single-Chamber Government. That is a wild assertion, which I was surprised to hear from such a moderate Member of the Opposition. If it had come from the Leader of the Opposition, I would not have been a bit surprised, because there is nothing moderate about him. But I was really surprised that it should cc me from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. There are the two Sessions that the legislation must occupy. There is a minimum of 12 months, and the other safeguards. To call that reduction horn double to single-Chamber Government is really wrong. The Second Chamber will still be there, and I believe that it will still have useful work to do.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the House of Lords should have ample opportunity and time to judge public opinion. That is why he objected to the limit of 12 months. He gave the illustration of the Transport Bill and said that it needed examination. I agree. That is a fair point. It was a Bill of substance, but, as a matter of fact, there were a lot of people ready to reject that Bill before ever it was seen—including the Conservative Party. Indeed, there were posters up all over the country before the Bill was introduced. There were posters hanging out of the tails of motor lorries which were driven upon the streets up and down the whole country. What did they say? "Kill this Bill," or "Stop the Transport Bill," and there was no Transport Bill at that stage. I am not complaining about the Conservative Party looking ahead; I wish they would do it a bit more, but they must not complain if we, too, look ahead. As a

matter of fact, the Debate on the Transport Bill started quite a long time ago in "Let us Face the Future." It was continued in the King's Speech, and it was mentioned again when I made the announcement to the House about the industries which we were going to socialise and in that awful "dust-up" which I had with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton). Consequently, although it may be said that this Bill limits the time of the veto period to one year, nevertheless, the Debate on that legislation often goes on much longer than that.
It has been argued by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and others that the House of Lords must have a proper and adequate opportunity in which it can judge what public opinion wishes. I will answer that perfectly frankly by saying that this Government and this party do not admit the right of their Lordships to judge what the public wishes from the angle of determining whether legislation may proceed or not. They have their rights as a revising Chamber, but I do not believe that their House is any more fit than this House—indeed, I think it is less fit than this House—to judge what the public wishes, and this Conservative argument about this great quality of their Lordships, which enables them to discern the true inwardness and meaning of public opinion, is really a cheeky claim that ought not to be made. This was the claim made during the progress of the Parliament Act, 1911, when Mr. Asquith had this argument put to him—that there was no barrier between the revolutionary Liberal Government and ruin. The argument that the Lords were, indeed, the true interpreters of public opinion was put to him, and Mr. Asquith gave the answer in language, perhaps a little longer but far better than anything I could have done, when he said—and this is worth listening to, because it is good, old-style Parliamentary oratory:
This new-fangled Caesarism which converts the House of Lords into a kind of plebiscitary organ is one of the quaintest inventions of our time. Let us see what it is. I will try to put the theory as plausibly as I can against myself. The theory is that the people require to be protected against their own elected representatives especially—may I not say exclusively—when the majority of those representatives happen to belong to the Liberal Party. By whom is the protection to be afforded? In what quarter is it to be found?


Here, the theory goes on. Providence has, as in so many ways, been exceptionally kind. It has supplied us with exactly the kind of thing we want for the purpose by an unforeseen and unforeseeable evolution, in our ancient House of Lords … It is true at first sight that, even to an uninstructed observer an assembly which is composed in a proportion, I suppose, of somewhere between twenty and ten to one of Members of a single political party, might not seem to be pre-eminently qualified to exercise a judicial or quasi-judicial function. But here again, Providence steps in, and it would seem that, either at birth or as the case may be upon creation, in the case of a peer who receives for the first time a Patent of Peerage there descends upon the favoured individual what I may call a kind of instinct of divination which enables him at all times thereafter to discern to a nicety—provided always a Liberal Government is in power—the occasions and the matters in regard to which the people's representatives are betraying the people's trust.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd December, 1909, Vol. 13, c. 556–7.]
I admit that Mr. Asquith has got me completely beaten in the brilliant and able expression and exposure of the whole arguments of the Conservative Party on this question of the Second Chamber; and, for quoting that passage, I deserve the vote of every true Member of the Liberal Party. It may be that the Liberal Chief Whip should consider whether he ought to move one Bench backwards, which I often think he ought to do, and it should be a warning to the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris) about what happened the other night when he met the Tory Party in his constituency.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: There is no secret whatever about that. I am a Liberal, and I am as independent a Liberal as anyone here.

Mr. Morrison: I only want to warn the hon. and learned. Gentleman that, if he holds his seat much longer by permission of the Conservative Party, he will be in for a rough time
The rejection of this Bill was moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), and he charged the Government with suddenly thinking of this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman is wrong about that, it I may say so with respect, and I expect that he knows he is wrong about it, because it was a pleasantry, and a very pleasant pleasantry, but he should not say these things. We did not suddenly think of these things. We have thought about

the House of Lords for many years. We thought about the House of Lords when we prepared "Let us Face the Future," and, as I told the House in moving the Second Reading, we thought about it before the beginning of the previous Parliamentary Session, and seriously considered bringing in the Bill then. But we had so much other work on our hands in that first Parliamentary Session that we thought we could not do it then, and we left it over until now. That is really the truth, the real truth. [Interruption.] Really it is. Why hon. Gentlemen opposite should have to invent some high-flown theory that Ministers were innocently walking through St. James's Park or the back streets of Whitehall a few weeks ago and suddenly had a divine inspiration in thinking of this Bill and said, "That will be fun, let us bring it in," I cannot imagine. Nothing of the kind happened. It was thought about a great deal before that as part of the plans for this Government, when the legislative programme was most carefully considered.
Therefore, the theory that this Bill is related to a particular legislative Measure, which I understand is under consideration for the future in connection with a particular industry, is wrong. This Bill may be related to a whole series of Measures before this Parliament is done. There is not only one Bill which is liable to upset the Tory Party or to upset their Lordships' House. The Opposition do not know what is coming to them. There may be a number of Bills of which they may be highly critical and on which their Lordships may take a serious view. Therefore, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that this is not a matter of suddenly thinking of something.
The right hon. Gentleman then said that this Bill is a petty, tinkering reform. All right, what is all the noise about, then? The right hon. Gentleman also complained that this Bill was retrospective, or, to use a more gentle term, for which I am grateful, retroactive. This argument of retrospective or retroactive legislation, is fundamentally all wrong. Really, there is nothing retroactive or retrospective about this Bill. Assuming that this Bill reaches the Statute Book sooner or later, all that it does, from this point onwards, is to provide protection for legislation passed thereafter, and from now on each Bill


will attract this protection as it comes on to the Statute Book. But that is not to say that this Bill could protect Bills which were introduced before it was introduced; it does not go back to earlier legislation. Therefore, in the true sense of the term, this Bill protects concurrent legislation. To use the word "retrospective," or even "retroactive," is, I suggest, somewhat of an exaggeration.
The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden also said, after saying that the Bill was a tinkering, petty reform, that it represented the 20th century dictator spirit. I wish he would make up his mind whether this Bill is on the Left or the Right. When he does so, will he kindly let me know, because I shall be much obliged. I have dealt with the point about it being a year or not a year in relation to the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir Maxwell Fyfe). He advised me to read Anson, as well as Erskine May. I will try, but I am sorry to say that I have not yet finished Erskine May, although I hope to make further progress with it at Christmas. The opposition to it of the Conservative Party was to be most strenuous, and I will also have a word to say about that later on.
I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Mr. W. Wells), my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Southwark (Mr. Naylor), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, certainly—and to others, for the support they have given. I am also much obliged to the critics opposite who have been critical about the Bill. The hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) said that this was a Bill for iron and steel, and the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby said that it is a Bill to put iron and steel into the pocket of this Bill. That is far too narrow a definition for the purposes of this Bill; that would make it a much too modest and moderate Bill. Its purposes are wider, and more comprehensive.

Mr. Maclay: I had substantial support for my interpretation from hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Morrison: That may be, but, surprising as it seems, I still adhere to my view that the purposes of this Bill are wider. It is no use the Liberal National Member for Montrose Burghs trying to

attract my people to his way of thinking about the narrow purposes of this Bill. It is all-embracing, and does not specialise on any particular subject.
I am also obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Central Bristol (Mr. Awbery), although he said that the Bill did not go far or fast enough. I would warn the Opposition, who would go much farther and faster, that they may think themselves lucky that this Go vernment are so moderate. The hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter), looking at us, said, "These are the Kerenskys." That is not a very polite observation, because Kerensky went down, and we do not intend to go down. I assure him that we are much more dangerous than Mr. Kerensky was, and no one knows it better than he does. My hon. Friend the Member for East Islington dealt faithfully with the points raised by hon. Members opposite. The hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (MT. H. Strauss)—I am sorry I missed his speech—declared that the House of Lords was the only bulwark against revolution. That is not really so. If revolution really comes, there is not much of a bulwark against it anywhere.

Mr. H. Strauss: The right hon. Gentleman evidently heard a misreported version of my speech. I did not say that; I said that, unless the Second Chamber had sufficient powers of delay, there would be no remedy against a tyrannical Government except revolution.

Mr. Morrison: Oh, I see. The report is certainly wrong. It was a conditional incentive to revolution in which the hon. and learned Gentleman was engaging. Is it not extraordinary, Mr. Speaker, what a curious effect these Universities or University cities have upon the minds of hon. Members. I always thought that the Universities made people respectable; I am beginning to doubt it. Only the other night, the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) incited people to disobey the law. Now we have the hon. and learned Gentleman flirting with the idea of contingent justifiable revolution.

Mr. H. Strauss: I cannot think that the right hon. Gentleman, who is obviously enjoying himself, wishes to misrepresent me. I was careful to quote what was also said in speeches by his own back


benchers, who said in the Second Reading Debate, when certain points were put to them, that there would always be the remedy of revolution. I said it would be lamentable if the only remedy of the people against a tyrannical Government were revolution. That is the point, and the point with which, if he has any answer, the right hon. Gentleman should endeavour to deal.

Mr. Morrison: With great respect, the hon. and learned Gentleman has confirmed what I said, that is, a contingent justification of revolution. If he pleads in aid that similar things have been said on this side of the House, I do not know that that improves his situation as a respectable Conservative Member of Parliament for the Combined English Universities. I am not saying that he is entirely wrong; I am only indicating the consequence of what he says, which he really must bear in mind.
The case for this Bill has been amply made, time and time again. Looking back on its history, it was received in various quarters, when introduced, as a gratuitous Bill, calculated to cause no end of trouble, crisis, and constitutional difficulty in the country. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition came down to the House and said all sorts of wild things about it. In the Debate on the Address, the right hon. Gentleman said:
Total powers are to be given to any Government obtaining power at a General Election, no matter how abnormal the conditions of that election, to carry whatever legislation they choose during their five years' spell, irrespective of whether the people wish for that legislation, and irrespective of whether the Government still have their confidence or not."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 28th October, 1947; Vol. 443, C. 717.]
On the second day of the Second Reading Debate, the right hon. Gentleman came down to the House and made one of those wild and demonstrative speeches which we all thoroughly enjoy. It did not have a great deal to do with the Bill, but in it the right hon. Gentleman certainly declared that this was a most dangerous, revolutionary and wild Measure to put before Parliament, and that the Opposition would fight it tooth and nail and would bring all their powers to bear to secure its rejection by Parliament. That was the only high light of our Debates on this Bill. If I may say so, the right

hon. Gentleman got very excited, exaggerated the importance of the Bill, and declared that it was revolutionary and the beginning of tyranny. Indeed, in the Debate on the Address, he said that this was an act of social aggression on the part of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. But what did the right hon. Gentleman do when he had delivered that great oration? He left the rest of the Bill to his right hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench, and took no more notice of it. That is all he cared about this Bill, which was supposed to be undermining the whole British democracy and Constitution. I am sorry he is not here today; I would much sooner say these things when he is here, although it is becoming much more difficult to say anything when the right hon. Gentleman is present because his appearances in this House are all too infrequent as the weeks go on.
He has gone for a holiday, and I do not blame him. I wish I had myself. I only say that if it be the case on Second Reading that he comes here and paints this Bill as a great, dramatic, revolutionary Measure, undermining the whole British Constitution, what is the House to make of the Committee stage, which was like a Sunday school treat? The attendance then was thin, as, indeed, it has been for the greater part of today. It was the same thing in the case of those newspapers which were saying that this was a terribly serious thing. If it was held on Second Reading, that this was a dangerous, revolutionary Measure, as was asserted by the Leader of the Opposition, and undermining the whole constitution of the State, it is rather ridiculous thereafter, in Committee, to treat it as though it were a fifth-class Bill.
The truth is that the public has a fair judgment of this Bill. They have the measure of its merits as a reasonable amendment of the law in regard to the relationship between the two Houses. This British people is a sensible people who take a practical view of these things, and the Opposition have again missed the boat. They have totally miscalculated the situation. They have underestimated the intelligence of the average citizen of this country. They have flabbergasted, filibustered and talked big at the Second Reading on one day. They then found that the public have acquiesced in this Bill and that it is they who


have misfired and made a great mistake in their attitude to this moderate, sensible, progressive Measure. It has been debated adequately by this House, and the Opposition criticisms have been completely answered both from this Front Bench and by my hon. Friends behind me. I trust that now, not only will this House give the Bill its Third

Reading by a large and emphatic majority, but that it may pass, after due consideration through all its stages in another place.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 340; Noes, 186.

Division No. 45.]
AYES.
[7.42 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Deer, G.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
de Freilas, Geoffrey
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)


Alpass, J. H.
Delargy, H. J.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Dodds, N. N.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Anderson, F (Whitehaven)
Donovan, T.
Janner, B.


Attewell, H. C.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Jay, D. P. T.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Jeger, G. (Winchester)


Austin, H. Lewis
Dumpleton, C. W.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)


Awbery, S, S.
Durbin, E. F. M.
John, W.


Ayles, W. H.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Edelman, M.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)


Bacon, Miss A.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)


Baird, J.
Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)


Balfour, A.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Jones, P. Aslerley (Hitchin)


Barstow, P G
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Keenan, W.


Barton, C.
Evans, A. (Islington, W.)
Kendall, W. D.


Battley, J R.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Kenyon, C.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Key, C. W.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
King, E. M.


Benson, G
Ewart, R.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.


Berry, H.
Fairhurst, F.
Kinley, J.


Beswick, F.
Farthing, W J
Lang, G.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Fernyhough, E.
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.


Bing, G. H. C.
Field, Capt. W. J.
Lee, F. (Hulme)


Binns, J.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)


Blackburn, A. R.
Follick, M.
Leonard, W.


Blenkinsop, A
Foot, M. M.
Leslie, J. R.


Blyton, W. R.
Forman, J. C.
Lever, N. H.


Boardman, H.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Levy, B. W.


Bottomley, A. G.
Freeman, John (Watford)
Lewis, J. (Bolton)


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Gallacher, W.
Lindgren, G. S.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Lipton, Lt.-Col M.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Gibbins, J
Longden, F.


Bramall, E. A.
Gibson, C. W
Lyne, A. W.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Gilzean, A.
McAdam, W.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
McAllisler, G.


Brown, George (Belper)
Goodrich, H. E.
McEntee, V. La T


Bruce, Maj, D. W. T.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
McGhee, H. G.


Buchanan, G.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
McGovern, J.


Burden, T. W.
Grenfell, D. R.
Mack, J. D.


Butler, H. W. (Hacknay, S.)
Grey, C. F.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)


Callaghan, James
Grierson, E.
McKinlay, A. S.


Carmichael, James
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Maclean, N. (Govan)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
McLeavy, F.


Chamberlain, R. A.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Champion, A. J.
Gunter, R. J.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.


Chater, D.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hale, Leslie
Mainwaring, W. H.


Cluse, W. S.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Cobb, F. A.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Mann, Mrs. J.


Cocks, F. S.
Hardy, E. A.
Manning, Mrs L. (Epping)


Coldrick, W.
Harrison, J.
Marquand, H. A.


Collick, P
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Marshall, F. (Brightside)


Collindridge, F.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. G.


Collins, V. J
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Mayhew, C. P.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Herbison, Miss M
Medland, H. M.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Hicks, G.
Mellish, R. J.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Hobson, C. R.
Middleton, Mrs L


Corvedale, Viscount
Holman, P.
Mikardo, Ian


Cove, W. G.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.


Crawley, A.
Hoy, J.
Mitchison, G. R.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Hubbard, T.
Monslow, W.


Daggar, G.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Moody, A. S.


Daines, P.
Hughes, Emry (S. Ayr)
Morley, R.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)




Morris, P (Swansea, W.)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Tiffany, S.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H (Lewisham, E.)
Rogers, G. H. R.
Timmons, J.


Mort, D L
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Titterington, M. F.


Moyle, A.
Royle, C
Tolley, L.


Murray, J D
Sargood, R
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Nally, W
Scollan, T
Turner-Samuels, M.


Naylor, T E.
Scott-Elliot, W.
Ungoed-Thomas L


Nichol, Mrs M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Segal, Dr. S.
Osborne, Henry


Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Noel-Baker, Capt. F E (Brentford)
Sharp, Granville
Viant, S P


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)
Shaw[...]ss, C. N. (Widnes)
Walker, G. H.


O'Brien, T.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Oldfield, W H
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.
Wallace, H. W. (Waithamstow, E.)


Oliver, G H
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Warbey, W. N.


Orbach, M
Silverman, S S (Nelson)
Watkins, T. E.


Paget, R. T.
Simmons, C. J.
Watson, W. M.


Paling, Will T (Dewsbury)
Skeffington, A. M.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Palmer, A M F
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Pargiter, G. A.
Skinnard, F W
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Parker, J.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Parkin, B. T.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Wheatley, J. T. (Edinburgh, E.)


Paton, Mrs F. (Rushcliffe)
Smith, S. H (Hull, S. W.)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Pearson, A.
Snow, J. W.
Wigg, George


Peart, T. F.
Solley, L. J
Wilkes, L


Perrins, W.
Sorensen, R. W.
Wilkins, W A


Piratin, P.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F
Willey, F T (Sunderland)


Platts-Mills, J. F. F.
Sparks, J A
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Pools, Cecil (Lichfield)
Stamford, W.
Williams, D J (Neath)


Popplewell, E.
Steele, T.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Porter, E. (Warrington)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Porter, G. (Leeds)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G (Lambeth, N.)
Williams, W R (Heston)


Price, M. Philips
Stross, Dr. B
Willis, E.


Proctor, W. T.
Stubbs, A E
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Pryde, D. J.
Swingler, S
Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J


Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Sylvester, G. O.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J H


Randall, H. E.
Symonds, A. L.
Wise Major F J


Ranger, J.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Woodburn, A


Rankin, J.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Woods, G. S.


Rees-Williams, D. R.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Wyatt, W


Reeves, J.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Yatas, V F


Reid, T. (Swindon)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Younger Hon. Kenneth


Richards, R.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)
Zilliacus, K


Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)



Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Thurtle, Ernest
Mr. William Whiteley and




Mr. Robert Taylor




NOES.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Davidson, Viscountess
Holmes, Sir J Stanley (Harwich)


Aitken, Hon Max
Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Howard, Hon. A.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
De la Bère, R.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.


Anderson, Rt. Hn Sir J. (Scot. Univ.)
Digby, S. W.
Hurd, A


Assheton, Rt Hon R
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. C. (E'b'rgh W.)


Astor, Hon. M
Donner, P. W.
Hutchison, Col. J R (Glasgow, C.)


Baldwin, A E
Dower, Lt.-Col A. V. G. (Penrith)
Jarvis, Sir J


Barlow, Sir J.
Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Jeffreys, General Sir G.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Drayson, G. B.
Jennings, R


Beechman, N. A.
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.


Bennett, Sir P.
Duncan, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (City of London)
Kerr, Sir J. Graham


Birch, Nigel
Duthie, W. S.
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Eccles, D. M.
Lambert, Hon G


Bossom, A. C.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Lancaster, Col C G


Bowen, R
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Langford-Holt, J


Bower, N
Erroll, F J
Law, Rt Hon. R. K.


Boyd Carpenter, J. A.
Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr E. L.
Legge-Bourke, Maj E. A. H.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Linslead, H N


Bullock, Capt. M.
Fox, Sir G.
Lloyd, Maj Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Butcher, H. W.
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Lloyd, Selywn (Wirral)


Butler, Rt Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Low, A. R. W.


Byers, Frank
Gage, C.
Lucas, Major Sir J


Carson, E.
Gammans, L. D.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H


Challen, C.
Glyn, Sir R.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon O.


Channon, H.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.


Clarke, Col R. S.
Gridley, Sir A.
McCallum, Maj D


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G
Grimston, R. V.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon M S


Cole, T. L.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Macdonald, Sir P (I of Wight)


Conant, Maj R. J. E
Hare, Hon J. H. (Woodbridge)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Haughton, S. G.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Head, Brig A. H.
Maclay, Hon. J S


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Macmillan, Rt Hon. Harold (B'mley)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Macpherson, N (Dumfries)


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Herbert, Sir A. P.
Maitland, Comdr J. W.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Hollis, M. C.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.







Marples, A. E.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D
Sutcliffe, H.


Marsden, Capt. A.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Raikes, H. V
Tealing, William


Maude, J. C.
Rayner, Brig. R
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Medlicott, F.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Mellor, Sir J.
Renton, D.
Thorp, Lt.-Col R. A. F.


Molson, A. H. E.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)
Touche, G. C.


Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)
Turton, R. H.


Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)
Vane, W. M. F.


Morris-Jones, Sir H.
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Ropner, Col. L.
Walker-Smith, D.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cir'nc'ster)
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Nicholson, G.
Sanderson, Sir F
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Nield, B. (Chester)
Scott, Lord W.
Wheatley, Col. M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Noble, Comdr. A. H. P
Shephard, S. (Newark)
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Nutting, Anthony
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Odey, G. W.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W
Williams, C. (Torquay)


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
Smithers, Sir W.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Snadden, W. M.
Willink, Rt. Hon. [...]. U.


Osborne, C.
Spearman, A. C. M.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Spence, H. R.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.
York, C.


Pickthorn, K.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Pitman, I. J.
Stoddart-Soott, Col. M.



Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Studholme, H. G.
Mr. Buchan-Hephurn and




Mr. Drewe.


Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

This Motion relates to certain consequential considerations which arose out of the cases of Mr. Allighan and the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walkden). It will be seen that the wording of the Motion which stands on the Order Paper is different from that which the House was debating in the late evening of 30th October, although the intention of this Motion is really the same as the intention of the Motion that was on the Order Paper at that time. The object of both the original Motion and of this substituted Motion is simply to give formal notice that in future cases of the sort on which the House pronounced judgment on 30th October, and where a Member has already been found guilty of corruptly accepting payment, it intends to proceed immediately not only against the recipient of the money but also against the offerer of the payment.

There are two points about the Motion. One is that the Member of Parliament must have been convicted by the House, and the other is that money should have passed, and it brings in the person who paid as well as the recipient, which appears to us to be just and fair in all circumstances of the case. In the cases of Mr. Allighan and the hon. Member for Doncaster, the Government were not prepared to recommend the House to proceed against the journalists or editors concerned in making the payment, because those persons were not necessarily aware at the material time that a Parliamentary offence was being committed. They were not infringing an actual Resolution of the House; nor, indeed, as I shall show later, were they infringing any recognised Privilege of the House. But from now on the intentions of the House should, in our judgment be on record, and if that is done, nobody will be able to plead ignorance.

I now come to the wording of the Motion which, as I say, has been amended in certain respects since we last debated this matter. The main differences are

two. The amended Motion is more general and less specific in its application both to the persons that it covers and to the penalties which it imposes. First of all, there is no specific reference to the "representative of a newspaper or of a Press agency." Secondly there is no reference to the penalty of exclusion from the precincts of this House. In the Debate on the original Motion certain hon. Members took exception to the wording of the second part of the Motion, and particularly to the words:
and if such person shall be the representative of a newspaper or of a Press agency,
on the grounds that these words, by implication, constituted a serious indictment of the profession of journalism, and by singling journalists out for pillory, left, in their judgment, the unwarranted impression that, as one hon. Member put it, "in the opinion of Parliament there is serious corruption in the British Press." I myself do not think that the words did bear such an implication. They were all related to the hypothesis that a Member of the House had already been found guilty by this House of corruptly accepting payment for the disclosure of confidential information. All the same, I felt at the time a good deal of sympathy with hon. Members in their criticisms, and I hope that the new wording may satisfy any reasonable objection on this score.

The other main change in the wording of the Motion relates to the penalty—the action which the House will take in specified circumstances against an offender. In the amended Motion it is now deliberately left open to the House to take "such action as it may, in the circumstances, think fit." The reason for this change is that it did seem right to His Majesty's Government on reconsideration not even to appear to fetter the discretion of the House by prescribing in advance a precise penalty which might or might not be appropriate in the circumstances of any particular case: As regards the action that the House might, in given circumstances, think fit to take, the main penalty


that can be imposed is, of course, that mentioned in the original Motion: namely, the exclusion from the precincts of the House of the person or persons implicated in the charge of corruption.

I have seen it suggested that this involves an extension of Privilege, by imposing a penalty upon a person or a group of persons who are not themselves Members of Parliament. If I may say so, this is a misconception. Privilege has always extended to strangers as well as to Members. But this is not really a question of Privilege. Strictly speaking, the original Motion did not impose a penalty at all. It simply announced the intention in certain prescribed circumstances of possibly withdrawing a facility—namely, the facility of entering the precincts of the House, to listen to the proceedings, and to interview Members of Parliament. I do not think that anyone would dispute the absolute right of this House to lay down who shall and who shall not enter the precincts at any time for any purpose. Nobody has the right to be present in these precincts except by leave, of the House.

One further word I would say about the nature of Privilege. We are not, as I say, discussing Privilege here at all. Breaches of Privilege attract a range of recognised penalties. If a journalist, or newspaper editor, or for that matter anyone else, commits a breach of Privilege, he exposes himself to those penalties. Now the House has decided that party meetings or private meetings of Members, wherever they are held, should not, as such, attract to themselves the Privileges which attach to the proceedings of Parliament as a whole. Therefore, no question arises here of creating a new Privilege. All we are doing in this case is to give notice that where a Member of this House has been convicted of corruptly accepting payment for the disclosure of certain confidential information, the offerer as well as the recipient of the payment shall bear his share of the responsibility.

The Government have given most careful thought to the terms of this Motion, and the amended Motion, as it now stands in my name and that of the Home Secretary, represents their considered decision. In those circumstances I must make it clear that the Government do not feel able to leave the matter to a free vote of the House. Shortly put, the case

for this Motion is that the House dealt, and dealt seriously and severely within its judicial authority and in its judicial spirit, with two Members of this House, one of whom was expelled and the other gravely damaged in his Parliamentary and political life, as a result of certain incidents. I take the view—I know that some of my hon. Friends think that I was perhaps too gentle—that the journalists and editors concerned could have fairly pleaded, whatever the ethics of the transactions may have been, that they did not know it would have been an offence to the House or a contempt of the House, or whatever it might have been adjudged to be. In these cases of doubt, I never wish the House to be hard. Therefore, I advised the House then, and I advise it now, that we should not take action against those journalists or editors.

I am bound to add however that, in my judgment, it does not generally accord with the laws of natural justice that Members of Parliament should find themselves shattered and ruined, and that the people who paid the money should go off scot-free. Therefore I am anxious that the House shall now give fail notice for the future that if this happens again, we shall take serious notice of it, so that no Leader of the House, whoever he may be, can be in the dilemma in which I have been on this occasion.

There is nothing vindictive about this. There is no wish to go for newspaper men. Indeed, I would not wish to do so, because I know them very well and have very human relationships with them, but these incidents do mean that the Lobby must mind its step. It must watch its members in their conduct. Editors must mind their step, too; otherwise they might bring themselves into conflict with Parliament, which would be most unhappy and most undesirable for the House and for the Parliamentary institution represented by this House. I do not want it to happen. I think that the way these Lobby men live with us, and their relationships with us, are, on the whole, a very happy state of affairs. They have their rules and honourable codes of conduct. The last thing in the world I should wish is that there should be any conflict, but those two incidents were disturbing. I will not mention any other, but I would beg of the Lobby and the


editors concerned, of all of them, to take the lesson to heart and to consider it in its proper setting.

I have not the least reason to believe that any other Lobby man or any other editor will be disposed to fall into this bad action, as I think it was, in connection with the matters with which we dealt on 30th October. The Press as a whole in this country is upright and is free of this kind of trouble. I have no reason to believe that such a thing will happen again, but the House will be right to place on record that if unhappily such a thing should happen again, the House will take action, and will take a serious view of the matter. In those circumstances, I hope that the Motion will commend itself to the favourable consideration of the House.

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. May I ask you, Sir, if you intend to call the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) and myself, in line 4, after "payment," to insert:
and persons responsible for instigating such payments.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Young): I believe that the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) was told by Mr. Speaker that his Amendment would not be called.

8.6 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: We had a discussion, as the Lord President has just reminded us, on 30th October, on a Motion dealing with the same subject as the Motion now before us. The Lord President has been good enough to point out the difference between this Motion and that one. I must say that I hoped, after the Adjournment of the Debate that night, that we would hear no more about this matter. I expressed the view then that such a Motion was, to use the words which I used then, otiose and quite unnecessary.
The right hon. Gentleman tonight—I do not know whether to use the words of which he made use in an earlier speech this evening—has been seeing "the shape of things that may be to come." That is what he said in the other Debate. The Motion proceeds on the hypothesis that something of the sort is likely to happen

and that because it may have happened in the past, there might be a repetition of it. I think that is extraordinarily unlikely. I will say why in a moment, if the right hon. Gentleman will listen.
The right hon. Gentleman said just now that in the past there have always been, and certainly it has been the case in the years that I have been here, most happy relations between the Members of this House and the Lobby correspondents and other journalists who come our way. It is only in the last few months that this happy relationship has been disturbed, to the great distress of both parties, I am perfectly certain. The right hon. Gentleman said just now that there is nothing in this Motion which is in any way against the Press and that there is nothing—to use his adjective—vindictive in this Motion. Yet the fact remains that, to an observer, it would appear to be another dig, to put it no higher than that, at the relationships between Parliament and Press. That, I think, is a thousand pities. I would much prefer to leave things as they are now, for this reason, that the only justification that the right hon. Gentleman put forward at all, on this occasion or when we discussed it before, was that in his view—this is what he said the other time—
it is fair that that note of warning should be issued and placed on the Journals of the House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th October, 1947: Vol. 443, c. 1231.]
I might agree with him if nothing had ever happened. In view of what has happened, in view of the reports of the Debate, and the report, if you like, of the Select Committee, I am perfectly certain that anybody who is going to carry on a journalistic vocation within the precincts of Parliament will look to this case as a locus classicus which will show him how to conduct himself. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that that is quite enough. I can imagine that any individual who first comes here from the journalistic world would probably be told, "Go and look up those Debates and let them, as well as what we tell you, be your guide." I do not think there is any use at all in putting a Motion of this kind upon the Journals, as the right hon. Gentleman wishes.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the Press must take these lessons to heart. I have had no opportunity to contact anyone in this connection, but I cannot


help believing they will have taken the thing to heart and that, therefore, it is quite redundant to have this Motion tonight, more particularly as, at the end of it all, the Motion concludes that
this House will take such action as it may, in the circumstances, think fit.
That we always will take, and it does not have to be put in the Journals. That is inherent in the constitution and the practice of this House; it is a long-established custom. When matters arise we, as a House, deal with them, and on matters of this kind we deal with them as Members of the House and not as Members of a political party, and I very much regret that the right hon. Gentleman said that if the matter were to go to a Division, he would crack the whip for those who sit behind him.
At the same time, in matters of this kind there are two sets of rules. There are what we might call the rules of law and there are the rules and code of honourable behaviour. If the law of Parliament is transgressed, anything which comes within the field of Privilege, will be dealt with as such at the time. If, on the other hand, there is any transgression of the law of the land, it is for the courts to deal with it. If, however, it is a breach of the rules of honourable conduct, I admit that the right hon. Gentleman is in a more difficult field, and these problems are generally dealt with as between honourable men—whom we must assume ourselves to be and whom, from our knowledge we believe the correspondents and newspaper people with whom we are in contact also to be.
One of the curious parts of this Motion is the wording. If, on this hypothetical occasion in the future
a Member shall have been found guilty of corruptly accepting payment for the disclosure and publication of confidential information about matters,
then certain consequences will flow. First of all, not being a lawyer, but reading this—and if it goes into the Journals of the House we are all responsible for it—I am not quite clear what is the effect of the word "corruptly." I do not know if the hon. and learned Solicitor-General or anyone else is going to tell us what is the point of "corruptly" and what is the difference between that and accepting payment—or is it a mere vituperative adverb to make it sound rather unpleasant? What is "confidential information"? I find that a very difficult phrase to under-

stand in this context. It has nothing to do with secrets. The Official Secrets Act is a complete protection of course, or ought to be, if there were a breach in that respect, so we can put aside any indiscretions which come within the ambit of official secrecy.
This is a matter of "confidential information." I suppose all of us in our contacts with our friends, relations and acquaintances from time to time discuss what are called private or—confidential matters, and I take it that means there is a natural or implied agreement that what we are talking about we will not pass on to somebody else, but there is no real test in it. One cannot say that it is automatically a piece of "confidential information." For example, if anyone happens to know when the House is going to rise for Christmas, that would be a piece of confidential information. I do not think it has been disclosed; certainly it has not been disclosed when we are coining back after Christmas; but if one happens to know and inadvertently tell someone, would that be treated as a piece of confidential information? I think we ought to know what is meant by this curious phrase, because it is a curious and unexpected phrase. But it goes further. There is this curious phrase to which I would like hon. Members to pay attention. The Motion does not in itself say there is anything wrong in disclosing confidential information. It is only wrong if you get something for it.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Corruptly.

Captain Crookshank: Corruptly. But the damage, if damage there is to the State and Parliament, may be just as great, either to the individual or Parliament, in a case where confidential information has been disclosed and there is no suggestion of its having been done for any gain whatsoever. Indeed, one can have indiscretion of as great magnitude without there being any suggestion of corruption or payment at all.
There is the other phrase about "matters to be proceeded with in Parliament." It is a very curious phrase. I have made several inquiries on this, but I have not been able to find any explanation in previous history or previous Acts which gives any explanation of these words. Here we deal with legislation, we


deal with general Debates, all openly discussed; legislation openly arrived at, right up to the Third Reading—but what are "matters to be proceeded with in Parliament"? The use of these words—and I would be pleased to receive any interpretation of the word "corruptly"—puts a risk, to put it no higher than that, on a number of our colleagues who, for all I know, may write in the Press and may be paid for their writings. I am not one of these, but I know that sometimes one sees signed articles, or articles under fancy names which one suspects may have been written or compiled by Members of this House.
No one has suggested there is anything wrong in that; I am not suggesting it now and I do not know whether anyone else is suggesting it, but it seems to me that if a writer gets paid and by inadvertence puts in his articles something which could be claimed to be confidential because it is not yet known to the world—such as the date of the rising for the Christmas Recess—and it happens in an article written today, and in the hypothetical case he is writing for payment, there would be a risk. I am not suggesting he would necessarily be proceeded against, but if it is confidential information, some thing which should not be disclosed, if in fact he does get paid for a series of articles, he will be wondering—to put it no higher than that—whether or not he may be covered by this Motion.
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider that as the real point which we must bear in mind before we pass this Motion. After all, a great deal of information comes in one way or another to those Members who write. They can foresee when it is possible that the Opposition are going to take a very strong view. Has that something to do with confidential information—what the Opposition are going to do about a Bill which has not yet been produced? I am putting these things in order to bring out the sort of stupidities which, so far as I can see, are inherent in this Motion.
One can quite well say that none of these cases will happen, and that it is too silly to mention them, to all of which my answer is that I do not think these cases are going to arise in the future and that is my fundamental objection to the Motion. We have had these cases. Everyone

knows what happens. Everybody knows the penalties upon those who, being Members of this House, offended. They can see, or have seen, all that has been said in evidence in the reports of the proceedings, and in HANSARD; and that is quite sufficient for dealing with the problem. It is quite unnecessary at this stage to put anything in the Journals of the House to the effect that the House will take such action as it may think fit, because that is redundant and quite unnecessary.
I hope that on further reflection the right hon. Gentleman will not press this Motion. I cannot believe it adds anything to the general code of Parliamentary behaviour, which, after all, grows, as he knows, from precedent to precedent. We have had these awkward cases. Everybody has seen what happened. Certainly the Press knows what has happened; and certainly anyone going to be in contact with Members of the House knows the risks which he may run if he deviates from the strict and narrow path—which I do not believe anyone will do, any more than I believe that any hon. Member of this House will do so. This may have been necessary six or 12 months ago, brought out of the blue for fear that something might occur; but now that these events have occurred there is no reason, in my opinion, for a Motion of this kind. Certainly, if the right hon. Gentleman is not going to withdraw the Motion, and is going to press it to a Division, I put it to him that he as Leader of the House, and as a good House of Commons man, ought to leave it to the free vote of Members of all parties.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. Edelman: I should like at the outset to declare my own special interest in this Motion. I am, by profession, a journalist. Every Member of this House has, equally, a special interest in this Motion, because every hon. Member is a journalist, or potentially a journalist, or a crypto-journalist. I feel therefore we are all deeply concerned with this Motion, and with its effect on the relations between the Government and the Press. Our own Press has for over 150 years been free of corruption. I want to emphasise this tonight so that it should not be thought, either at home or abroad, that the introduction" of this Motion implies


any general censure of the Press. I was abroad at the time when the two recent Motions were debated about the conduct of two hon. Members in relation to the Press; and I must say that, instead of considering that that indicated a decay in manners and morals in this country, people abroad, on the contrary, considered that the intense resentment of any indication of corruption was proof of the wholesome civic and moral sense which prevails in Great Britain.
There was a time when there was corruption in our Press. Such corruption was present in the time of Walpole, but since then there has been a healthy resistance in the body politic against that kind of corruption. Men like Jack Wilkes, who was a Member of this House, and "Junius"—the pseudonym of one who was believed to be a Member of this House—so purified our Press that for over a century it has been the repository, in a sense, of the public conscience. The function of the Press has ever since been what "Junius" declared it to be. He said:
The liberty of the Press is the Palladium of all the civic, social and religious rights of every Englishman.
It is by that standard that our Press has maintained itself for such a long period.
But there is a danger which the wording of the Motion might seem to imply, and that I feel ought to be clarified tonight. There is a fear—an unfounded fear—that it is the wish of the Government to infringe in some way the rights and the liberties of the Press. I am quite sure that no one who understands the intentions of the Government in this matter will feel that that is the object of this Motion. None the less, we have to make it quite clear that the functions of the Press and that of the Government are entirely separate. There was a time in the last century when "The Times" criticised Louis Napoleon in France, and at that time a Member of the Upper House, Lord Derby, said:
As in these days the English Press aspires to share the influence of statesmen, so also it must share in the responsibilities of statesmen.
To that "The Times" replied in a famous leader:
The purposes and the duties of the two powers"—
meaning the Press and the Government—

are constantly separate, generally independent, sometimes diametrically opposite. The first duty of the Press is to obtain the earliest and most correct intelligence of the events of the times, and instantly, by disclosing them, to make them the common property of the nation.
That seems to me to be a summary of the function of the Press which has not been improved on until the present day. Even now we must recognise that the Government must not either do or seem to do anything which will impair the Press in its free collection of news or in its, free expression of views.
Hon. Members of this House who are journalists find themselves in a certain difficulty. They have privileged access to information, the opportunity of prior knowledge which is not given either to their colleagues who are journalists or to the general public. For that reason, a Member of this House who is a journalist has in himself the duty of determining whether he has the right to disclose that information to the paper for which he happens to work. In one way an hon. Member who is also a journalist is rather like a doctor, because he has privileged opportunities which he must not abuse. A journalist who is also a Member of this House has on him a special responsibility for self-discipline, and for determining in his own mind whether what he wishes to disclose can suitably be disclosed.
That is, however, a code of conduct for Members of Parliament which I would not wish to enjoin on journalists who are outside Parliament. A point which I do wish to make tonight is that a journalist, whether in the Lobby or outside, has the obligation of obtaining news as rapidly and as accurately as possible, and of offering that information as quickly as possible to the general public. A Member of Parliament who is a journalist must have certain inhibitions in offering information to the public; on the other hand, a journalist who is not a Member of Parliament has on himself the duty of doing everything in his power to obtain that information, provided only that in its ultimate disclosure he does not infringe the Official Secrets Act, which covers certain specific things, and which seems to me to be an adequate restraint upon the Press in general in preventing it from disclosing information which might be detrimental to the country as a whole.
For that reason, we must tonight make a clear distinction between restraints which are self-imposed upon Members of this House by themselves and those which are applied, or which we may seek to apply, to journalists outside the House. I am quite sure that the Government would not do anything which would limit the freedom of action, or the opportunity of having access to news, which is the right of every journalist, and, for that matter, of every citizen. We have therefore to watch the wording of this Motion very carefully, to ensure that there is nothing in it which in any way infringes the natural rights of every citizen to have free access to information.
There was a time in the 18th century when an interpretation of law stated that a publisher could be held responsible for the criminal publication of news by one of his agents, but that the publisher would not be entitled to trial by jury. It was not till well into the 19th century that that particular restraint on and injustice to publishers was finally removed. I hope that whoever replies ultimately for the Government, and interprets the wording of the Motion, will make it clear that a publisher or editor whose agent commits an offence in the form of bribery and corruption will not be condemned without an opportunity of stating his case. That seems to me to be a fundamental right of every publishes, and editor.
One thing which has disturbed me somewhat about the wording of this Motion is that on the condemnation of a person responsible for a disclosure of confidential information, it would appear to follow that the publisher whose agent he is should immediately, and almost automatically, be condemned. It is important that there should be adequate safeguards so that, in the event of the condemnation of an agent who has behaved in that way his principal will be given a full and fair opportunity of stating his case.
I wish to support this Motion because I believe its general intention to be a correct one. I believe the general purpose of the Motion to be to see that the relations between Press and Government remain as they have always been—cordial and friendly, with the rights of both respected by each. It is because of that relationship which grew up during the 19th century that our Press is today the best in the

world. It is a Press which is incorruptible; a Press which has a high reputation for accuracy in the presentation of news; and a Press which has a high reputation for the responsibility with which editors state opinions. I know that there is a danger at a certain point that, in the name of freedom of the Press, journalists, and even editors, may engage in statements or put forward views which do not redound to the freedom of the Press, but rather indicate that freedom has degenerated into licence. Generally speaking, I do not think the Press of this country has suffered in that respect.
I believe the object of this Motion will be to secure that that never will be the case, and I believe that the Press, which has grown to be a model for the whole of Europe, will remain that model, because when there is anything which seems to infringe on either its freedom or its integrity, then Parliament, editors and journalists are quick in combination to see that those conditions do not continue.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: I did not follow very clearly exactly the line of impression which the hon. Member for West Coventry (Mr. Edelman) meant to leave with the House. I did gather, I think, that he was a British journalist, and that he was of opinion that British journalism was a model to the rest of the world; but for the rest, I was not quite sure what impression he was meaning to leave. I would not for the world say a word against the British Press, but I think it is a little too lightly assumed that all the rest of the world looks to our Press as a model.
I do not think it is really necessary to add very much to the general objections to this Motion which were made by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank). I had rather hoped, therefore, that the luck of the batting order might have enabled me to speak after we had heard the learned Solicitor-General's answers to the particular questions which my right hon. and gallant Friend put. But without that advantage, perhaps I may be permitted to overlap a little some of what was said earlier, of "corruptly," for instance. Does it mean that there can be acceptance of payment for disclosure and publication of confidential information which is not corrupt? Is the word "cor-


suptly" adding something? I assume that it is, and if so, without wishing to criticise the Lord President of the Council who has had a lot to do today, I think we ought to have been told what, from the beginning. I do not think the lawyers on this side exactly follow what is meant to be imported by the word "corruptly"; I am sure the rest of us do not follow what is meant, and, therefore, we are under difficulty in arguing the point.
Secondly, I am not sure What "publication" means—"publication of confidential information." It appears that in one of the recent incidents out of which this has arisen, there were representatives of one section of the Press present at a series of confidential meetings, I understand that they were there—and I think it appears on the face of the evidence that if they were there, it was on condition that they did not directly report what happened, and in that sense they were not to publish confidential information. But it did not appear they were there for nothing, rather that they were there in order that what they wrote, and their subordinates wrote, should be more accurate as a result of their being present at the exchange of confidential information than would otherwise have been the case. If not, I cannot see why on earth they were there. If that is so, it seems that, in so far as they were in receipt of remuneration, they would fall under the mischief of this resolution.
It seems to me that "publication of confidential information" does not consist only and necessarily of saying "Bill Smith tells me in confidence, and I ought not to repeat it, but I do here tell you that X is going to happen tomorrow." You can so talk to the other person that if he is clever enough and knows enough he can spot what you are talking about—can gather more or less of the matters which were discussed between Bill Smith and the other confidential person. The point is simple enough but I may not have made it clear—that such publications might fall under this Resolution. If that is so, that is a very serious objection to the use of the words "disclosure and publication," an objection to which attention has not been previously called. I think there is a more general objection, and the simple way of putting the point is to show how lame is the conclusion of

this Motion. After a lot of minatory and rather pretentious stuff
this House will take such action as it may, in the circumstances, think fit.
Well, you could not really have a much more lame and impotent conclusion than that. Therefore, when one finds a rather elaborate assertion, and exposition, in order to come to such a very lame and impotent conclusion at the end, one inquires: Why is this thing being done? I have no doubt that the Lord President was well advised in what he said just now, and I expect he was right, when he said that this was not, strictly speaking, a matter of Privilege. I am sure that the learned Solicitor-General will bear me out, or perhaps the Home Secretary who is equally learned, although in a different sense—

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): Nat at all.

Mr. Pickthorn: In a different and not inferior sense. I have forgotten what I was on now—too many interruptions from the Front Bench opposite. Yes, I know the point now. It was said that this was not technically a matter of Privilege, but I am sure that the distinction between what is a matter of Privilege and what without being such may be proceeded against, or normally thought of as naturally referable to the Committee of Privileges, I am sure that distinction between strict Privilege and what, not being strictly Privilege, might attract the attention, and especially the punitive or corrective attention of this House—the distinctions between those matters which are properly privileged, and those which are not, are highly and subtly Byzantine distinctions. I am sure that no Member can draw that distinction clearly unless he has just looked up the books, and consulted the clerks, and so on.
This is a matter of Privilege in the general sense, not only in the general outside sense, but in the general sense in which Members of Parliament talk about Privilege. Within that field—and within both halves of the field, both the half which is the strictly privileged half and the other half of the field—I think this is clear, although I hesitate to assert anything positively in these matters: that what the House cannot do is to legislate; that is to say, it cannot make something into a punishable offence which was not previously a punishable offence, nor can it


affix to some line of conduct which was previously punishable some new or additional penalty or threat. I think I am right in saying that that is plain and has been plain any time these 300 years, or thereabouts. That is, of course, why the conclusion on this Motion had to be so lame and impotent.
But what is the rest of it for, then? What is the rest of it doing if it is not legislating, or coming near to legislation? No one can say that it is a piece of legislation in the sense in which a Statute is a piece of legislation, but if the Motion has no legislative tendency, what effect or purpose has it? I think the Lord President did come near to claiming legislative force for it. He said that he hesitated to proceed against journalists in earlier cases because they were not infringing any resolution or Privilege. You see the point. He stuck in "Resolution" as well as "Privilege." But Resolutions of this House do not create punishable offences. I think that is right, and I think the Home Secretary agreed with me three minutes or so ago that that was right. If that was the reason for not proceeding against them in the last case, that must be the reason for continuing not to do so unless this Motion is claiming some legislative effect. On the hypothesis of my argument, with which I think the Treasury, Bench had nodded agreement, that is what this Motion cannot do.
I noticed with great interest the almost spinsterish solicitude with which the Lord President in this connection was anxious to avoid anything that could, by the most prudish, be supposed to have the least taint of retrospection about it. It was rather interesting to those who had listened to the last Debate. When it comes to constitutional arrangements affecting great matters of legislation, with unpredictable effect on the whole world, retrospection does not seem to matter. But here, in this matter, the right hon. Gentleman was ostentatiously scrupulous to avoid any risk that the House might appear to have any retrospective or retroactive effect by proceeding against these journalists. If action against them then would have been retrospective, now the hoped-for tendency of this Motion must be something legislative. How otherwise can it make prospective what otherwise would be retrospective? I do not see any way round that dilemma.
Either this Resolution means nothing and is clotted nonsense, or it really is intended to have some legislative tendency; or, what I am glad to say satisfies my prejudices while pleasing my reason, it is both, and on these grounds I hope that this House will vote against it.

8.46 p.m.

Mr. Mallalieu: I know that the Lord President of the Council has had an exceptionally busy day, but I wish that he could have found time to listen to the speeches, both of the right hon. and gallant Member for Gains-borough (Captain Crookshank) and the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn). I think it would have shown the Lord President the dangers into which one runs if one tries to confine, within the limits of legal phrases, something which is, after all, a problem of human relationships. This is a problem on which I, for all sorts of personal reasons, feel very deeply and very sincerely. I was horrified to hear hon. Members opposite dealing with it as though it were some nice issue to be argued before judges in a court of law.
I have been, as everyone else in this House has been, disturbed about the whole business of the relationship of journalists to Members of this House, and I have been disturbed particularly on two points. First of all, as the Lord President knows, I think that this House made a grave mistake, and was wanting in its duty, when it failed to punish Mr. Stanley Dobson and the Editor of the "Evening News" when they were caught out in the act of bribery. But I agree with the Lord President that the time for taking that particular action is now past.
The second point which disturbs me is the attitude which is arising in this House and, particularly, I regret to say, on my own side of it, to the profession of journalism, and to those who practise it. In the old days—I say in the old days as though I had as much experience as the Noble Lord the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton)—but I merely mean that I love this House and have known it for a long time—whenever one wanted to raise a laugh in the House, one referred to journalists, but the laugh that came was good-natured. It was like the laugh one gets outside at a reference to a politician or a nonconformist.

Mr. Pickthorn: Or a don.

Mr. Mallalieu: The references were used always as friendly terms of abuse. Today the laugh raised when the subject of journalism is mentioned, is rather a bitter laugh, and I regret that very deeply. I think that it is perfectly natural. We have been presented in this House, in the last few months, with an example where t. member of the Lobby of the House of Commons has shown that he cannot maintain the high standard that is clearly expected of the Lobby. We have had the same thing with Members of the House and it is natural that it should cause some bitterness, but it would be tragic if those particular instances were magnified into a generalisation—if, because one Member at least has been guilty of lowering the high standards to which the Lobby has subscribed for over 60 years, we were to assume it was right to cast a slur on the whole body of Lobby Correspondents. For that reason I am delighted that the wording of this Motion has been changed from what it was when we last considered it.
That is now past, and I am very much concerned with our present and future relations with journalists who are members of the Lobby. I should like as a very humble, insignificant back bencher to make this suggestion to those who have more experience of this House than I have, that it might be a good thing if there were to he a sort of conference between the House of Commons and representatives of the Lobby—if, for example, the Lord President of the Council, the Father of the House, and perhaps a representative of each of the main political parties were to get round a table with representatives of the Lobby to discuss the various problems which now face us. One of the things which might well be discussed is whether or not the existing powers of the committee of the Lobby are sufficient to give them power to discipline their members. At the present moment—and perhaps it is really a lawyer's question—it is extremely doubtful whether the committee of the Lobby has any power over its members at all.
I believe it is in the same sort of position as other similar bodies like the Guild of Industrial Correspondents. Members may remember that Mr. Garry Allighan was himself a member of the Guild of Industrial Correspondents. He was expelled

from that Guild for unprofessional conduct, but having been expelled, he issued a writ. The issue was never decided in court, but it is quite possible that the Guild of Industrial Correspondents, because of the action it took against Mr. Garry Allighan, might have found itself mulcted in very heavy damages. It seems to me that the same position might obtain in this House if the committee of the Lobby Correspondents decided themselves to take action against a member of the Lobby. I believe it is true that the only person who has power to take action against a man who holds a Lobby ticket is Mr. Speaker himself. I should like to see the powers of the Lobby Committee extended to this extent that they should have the privileged right to condemn the action of one of their fellow members as unprofessional, and to report that condemnation to Mr. Speaker himself, so that Mr. Speaker, if he thought fit, should take action. By "privileged" I mean that they should not thereby render themselves duct, but having been expelled, he issued
The second point I think perhaps a conference such I have suggested might take up, is the whole question of the written rules of conduct in the Lobby. I am extremely doubtful, without having discussed the question, about the value of written rules. So far as I can remember from my experience as a Lobby correspondent in years gone by, there were no written rules. There were certain established precedents and traditions, which in a way had the force of rules. For example, I always understood that if I spoke to a Member or a Minister in the Inner Lobby or anywhere else in the House, I could not quote him as having said what he did say without express permission, but I could quote what he said without referring to him unless he expressly refused me the right to do so.
That seemed to be the established tradition. It had pretty well the force of law but that was not enough. That was laying down a rule which might have done elsewhere, but here in the House of Commons, as hon. Members know better than I do, there is a particularly intimate sort of relationship between the members of the Lobby and Members of Parliament. It is impossible to lay down hard and fast rules. Very often Members of Parliament would come up to us in passing


through the Lobby with a matter still in their minds from the Chamber and they would say a thing without putting any ban on it at all which in sober thought they would not have wanted to see in the papers. Every time we had to say to ourselves not, "What is my right; what is the rule?" but "What is fair?" En the words of a previous Speaker, we had to guide our conduct by consideration of what a gentleman would do, and that is the basis—not these rules that we may lay down on Order Papers—on which both we as hon. Members and members of the Lobby as journalists must conduct our affairs.
I know that in the present heat of feeling there may be some hon. Members who feel that that test can no longer be applied to the Lobby and that certain members of the Lobby have"shown that they cannot be judged on the standards of a gentleman, but I believe that those who feel that, do not know the sort of men that journalists really are. I am horrified sometimes at the things that are said in this House about journalists. If they were said from these benches or from the benches opposite about the miners or the doctors, there would be an absolute outcry; yet people can say things about journalists in this House and get away with it. I believe that arises from a failure to understand the tremendously high standard of conduct that the vast majority of journalists really have.
I remember that when I came into the Lobby first in 1933 I had the privilege of sharing a room behind and above the old House of Commons with two very well established journalists. Perhaps in part because I knew the House of old and that it was born into me but, even more, because of their influence, within about a week I had absorbed into my very being the standard of conduct which was expected from me in this House. Those two men who taught me have taught many others and they are still here, and there are dozens of other men like them in the Lobby. I would say that rather than lay down rules on the Order Paper trying to codify a standard of conduct, we as Members of Parliament should be prepared to leave the conduct of the Lobby to men like that, and that in no circumstances, whatever justification we

may have because of recent events, should we attempt to put restrictions upon the freedom of access that members of the Lobby have to hon. Members of this House. That old fight between the Press and Parliament, which was really a fight between the Press and the public on the one hand and Parliament on the other, has been settled long ago. The Press represented by the Lobby and by the Gallery are now an integral part of the British Parliament, and I hope that nobody by action or even by words, will do anything whatever which will once again put back history and make the Press a class apart, strangers in a strange land.
I would rather appeal to my hon. Friends on this side of the House that they should really try to understand what are the problems of the Press and what sort of people they are. The Press itself, through the Lobby Committee and through their own elder statesmen, should be especially vigilant, not only for their own good name but to protect the rights of Members as well, so that working here in the House of Commons, whether as a journalist or as a Member, will again become in the future what it was in the past—one of the most fully satisfying jobs that a man can have.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. Butcher: I have rarely listened to a speech which gave me greater pleasure, and with which I found myself in greater sympathy, than that of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mallalieu). I felt he put his finger on the real code which should govern the relations between this House and the journalists who report our deliberations when he said the test should be what a gentleman would do under the circumstances. I believe that is the test which this House has applied for a good many years, and which it would be well to continue to apply in the future. It is with that in my mind that I read this Motion, and I really do not think that it will help in establishing conduct on that high level which he and I would both desire, if this House passes this Motion.
This is not a case of establishing relations for the first time between this House and Lobby correspondents. These relations have grown up over a period of years and during that time have been


singularly free from unpleasant incidents. Now, after an unpleasant incident, we are hoping that those old pleasant and happy relations will be re-established. We have to ask ourselves how far will that be helped by the passing of such a Motion as we see on the Order Paper? First, I think it is open to criticism in terms of being completely woolly in its meaning. Secondly, I believe that such a Motion casts an undeserved slight on a body of men who have endeavoured to discharge their duties to this House in all possible ways to the best of their ability.
I do not think this is a matter on which we ought to spend a great deal of time. I associate myself entirely with the observations of the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crook-shank), but there is one thought that crosses my mind, which I would like to put to whoever is to reply from the Government Front Bench. I have been trying to read a law book, which is almost completely Greek to any layman like myself, but I understand that it is a misdemeanour to bribe, or to attempt to bribe, a Privy Councillor or a juryman, and it is an offence in Common Law. If that is the case, surely a Member of Parliament would not be very far out in the line which connects a Privy Councillor with a juryman, and therefore I ask whoever may reply, is it not a fact that in Common Law there are any necessary remedies available at present should there he any attempt to bribe a Member of Parliament in this matter?
Even if these remedies did not exist, I still believe that, by passing such a Motion as the one on the Order Paper, we are not assisting the smooth working of this institution, in which both politicians and Press men try to serve the people. We are rather clouding the issue. The position will never be quite the same after this Motion has been passed, and I hope, therefore, that after due consideration, and having listened to the speeches made in all quarters of the House, the Government will feel able to withdraw the Motion.

9.5 p.m.

Earl Winterton: This Motion raises a far greater issue than has been apparent from most of the speeches yet delivered, except for the speech of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mallalieu). I wish to try to persuade the

House and hon. Members opposite—not to attack, but to persuade them—that this is not a small matter, not a question which can be disposed of in a short time, but that it raises matters which go to the very fundamentals of the relationship between this House and the Press. In doing so, may I commence on a somewhat egoistic note, by saying that not only do I stand here as the senior Member of the House—what is commonly known as the Father of the House—but I happen to be the oldest journalist in the House. I first wrote an article for a review in 1902, and I was asked to be a special correspondent of the "Daily Mail" in 1903, and became an editor in 1909.
I agree with everything the hon. Member for Huddersfield said in what I thought was a very eloquent speech. He said there had been a grievous deterioration in recent years—I would almost say in this Parliament—in the relationship between this House and the Press. I do not want to make a party speech, and I am not saying to whom blame attaches for that state of affairs, but it is a fact. I have noticed that some hon. Members opposite treated the part of the speech of the hon. Member for Huddersfield in which he said that no one would dare to speak of miners or doctors as they speak of journalists, as a matter of small importance. If is a question of great importance, because the profession of journalism in this country is an ancient and honourable craft, and if there is a lack of understanding and good feeling between this House as an institution and journalists, it is the duty of this House to consider what are the reasons.
Before I come to the main points I wish to put to the House, I would like to associate myself with what the hon. Member for Huddersfield said when he suggested that it might be desirable to have some informal conference, at any rate as far as Lobby and Gallery correspondents are concerned, between them and some hon. Members of the House, to see how the situation could be improved.
I submit that this is a most dangerous and most unnecessary Motion. I would like to start with what I believe to be a truism from which I think there will be no dissent by any lion. Member in any part of the House. I say that the standard of personal integrity, irrespective of party, or class, is today, and has been within


living memory, as high in this House as in any legislative assembly in the world. That is a deliberate understatement on my part, because I do not want to say anything wounding to other assemblies, but one might put it very much higher. I will go a step further than that, and I think I will have the assent of many hon. Members opposite when I say that it is equally true of the personal standards of journalists in this country. If we compare the Press of this country with the Press of a good many other countries, including some friendly countries, there is no doubt that the Press of this country stands far above them in integrity and responsibility.
To come back to the position of this House and, of course, the position of the House is undoubtedly affected by this Motion—the inevitable effect of the passage of this Motion will be to suggest that there has been, or that there is likely to be, corruption in our midst. I put that to the Home Secretary. The inevitable effect will be to suggest that there is, or is likely to be, corruption. I think that is a profoundly mistaken view. In my long experience there have been only two serious deviations from the high standard of conduct to which I have just referred. One was the far-off Marconi case, and the other was the case of Mr. J. H. Thomas. Each of them was infinitely less bad than the scandals in legislative assemblies elsewhere. I could mention such cases as the Stavisk case and the Teapot Dome scandal. I most sincerely hope that no one in this House differs from the view that this House, irrespective of class or party, has as high a standard of conduct and integrity as any legislative assembly in any country in the world. That being so, it is most unfortunate that this Motion should have been put on the Paper because, although I am sure that it is not the intention of the Leader of the House, the effect will be to suggest that there has been corruption and scandal.
Let us consider from what this Motion originates. Undoubtedly, as indeed the Leader of the House admitted, it originates from the disclosure of proceedings at two private meetings of Members upstairs. I do not deny that this is an undesirable practice, and it is a fact, which was brought out in a certain committee, to whose proceedings it would be

out of Order to refer, that there have unfortunately been other instances of the same kind in the past. On those occasions it was the party which sits on, this side of the House, not the party opposite, which suffered from that state of affairs. There was a period when, in a certain London newspaper, there used to appear, practically every week, an account of what took place at the weekly meeting of the party on this side of the House, which is similar to the weekly meeting of the party opposite. I agree that that was so. But I would say—and here we come to the very gist of this Motion—that however undesirable that conduct may be—and I shall suggest in a moment the way in which it should be dealt with—it is not a break of the Privilege of this House.
I do not want to repeat what I read out on the last occasion when I spoke on this matter, when we were concerned with the two cases, but I would refer hon. Members to the evidence, in the Report of the Committee of Privileges in the first of the two cases, given by the learned Clerk. As I asserted on the last occasion, and as I re-assert now, the evidence of the learned Clerk was conclusive on the point that it was not a breach of Privilege to disclose what happened upstairs. Therefore, by passing this Motion, let the House be fully aware of this—and this is why I do not agree with my hon. Friend who has just spoken that this is a comparatively small matter, which can be easily disposed of—this House will be extending Privilege. That extension has never hitherto existed. I am sorry that the Lord President of the Council is not here. I know it is not his fault; he has been on the Bench all day, and must have something to eat; but I should have liked to tackle him personally on this matter, because he rather fenced, or perhaps I should say talked around, that point. I ask the Home Secretary to deny, when he comes to reply, my contention that this is an extension of Parliamentary Privilege.
The Leader of the House referred to the matter, because, as I say, he fenced round it. That brings me to two inescapable conclusions, which I should like to submit to the House. They are that either there should be a reference to the Committee of Privileges or to an ad hoc Select Committee to consider whether


Privilege should be so extended. It should not be extended by a Resolution of this House, but only after consideration by a Select Committee of the Committee of Privileges. In that way all the arguments might be put by witnesses. It should not be done by a Resolution of this House. There should be no extension of Privilege without investigation by an appropriate Committee. The reference to such a Committee should be a very simple one. It should be to ask the Committee to say whether or not Privilege should be extended to private meetings of Members held upstairs, whether or not strangers are present. That has never been the case hitherto. The question should be decided in that way.
If it is decided that that should not be the principle pursued, then I suggest that there is another and much simpler way of dealing with the situation which does not require an undesirable extension of privilege, or need this Motion with all the dangers inherent in its wording and inherent in it generally. It should be dealt with by the very simple process of Members of each party who hold such meetings dealing with their own offenders in their own way. No assembly that I know of in the world is better suited to do that sort of thing. It is perfectly possible to prevent it. It is perfectly possible for any constituted party in this House, or any body of people who belong to different parties, to do what I suggest. If a Member gives away confidential information, there are a half dozen ways of bringing home to him the seriousness of his offence and of seeing that he does not repeat it. I have deliberately refrained, as did my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough from making a point which we could easily make if this was a party Debate, that this would not have happened but for the unfortunate conduct of two hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Nally: And two Tory newspapers.

Earl Winterton: Very well. The hon. Gentleman need not get excited. I quite agree—and two newspapers outside.

Mr. Nally: Two Tory newspapers.

Earl Winterton: The hon. Gentleman need not make this a party matter. It is not a party matter. It would not have

occurred but for the unfortunate conduct of two hon. Members opposite. They might equally have been Tories or Liberals, or anything else. We should not pass a Motion because two Members, whatever their party affiliations, could not be dealt with through the medium of their own party discipline and because the mater had to be brought to the attention of the House. I repeat that this is an extension of the rule of Privilege.
I also wish to refer to the terms of the Motion. I do not think that my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough dealt with it in detail. As he said, he did not want to make a long speech. I do not think that the attention of the House has been fully called to the extreme danger of the wording of this Motion and of its extreme dubiety. I am not going to charge the Government with wanting to use this Motion for tyrannical purposes. But it might very easily be used by some subsequent Government with a large majority. Let the House look at the Motion:
That, if in any case hereafter a Member shall have been found guilty by this House of corruptly accepting payment"—
as my right hon. and gallant Friend said, what on earth is the meaning of the words. "corruptly accepting payment"?—
for the disclosure and publication of confidential information about matters to be proceeded with in Parliament.
I think that the hon. Member for Huddersfield put a specific case. I will do the same. Suppose that some Member of Parliament who is a journalist, or somebody outside the House who is a journalist, learns that a certain Bill is to be brought forward on a certain day and he discloses that information and receives payment for his articles. Is he solemnly to be charged in the House with:
corruptly accepting payment for the disclosure and publication of confidential information"?
I want an answer to that question. I want to know whether if a journalist, either in this House or outside, says that such and such a Bill is to be brought forward at such and such a time, or if he goes further and says, "The line of the Government will be so and so," he is to be charged because that information has not been released generally? Is he to be charged because there has been no statement across the Table to the effect that such and such a Bill is to be brought in


on a particular day? Is he guilty or not guilty of:
corruptly accepting payment for the disclosure and publication of confidential information"?
How is one to check this matter? Let us take the case—this is no personal reference, because I happen to be rather an admirer of the writings, much as I dislike their politics—of two hon. Members who write under pseudonyms in the "Tribune" and the "New Statesman." They are Members of this House who appear, on the whole, to be very human in that they have said friendly things about myself on more than one occasion, and I am, naturally, rather on their side, despite their political views. How is one going to act in the case of anonymous writers who are Members of Parliament? How are we going to check whether they are giving away confidential information? There are a whole lot of other circumstances which one might bring in.
I want to ask again, putting this matter on a non-party basis so far as I can—and I have no wish to offend the Home Secretary—what is going to happen in the case of the correspondent or the editor of the "Daily Herald," who is always present, so we are told, in a Committee room upstairs at meetings of the Labour Party? I am not saying whether he should be there or not. I have no doubt that, as it is a private meeting, the Labour Party are quite entitled to have there whoever they like; but when he is present and gets information which is not open to other Members of the House, what is his position? He is disclosing confidential information. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] The hon. Gentleman says "Why not?" The whole purpose of this Motion is to prevent people from disclosing confidential information. [Interruption.] Well, if he does not do so, what is the object of calling a confidential meeting?

Mr. Thomas Reid: I can give the noble Lord the reason quite simply. It is usual to have the editor of the party newspaper present so that he may know how the party feels towards particular matters.

Earl Winterton: I am bound to make this observation on the hon. Gentleman's interruption. If I were making a party speech, I would advise him to tell that story to the horse marines, because I have

never heard a more unconvincing reason given for putting in a privileged position a journalist of a particular party. Everybody knows that he is present in order that he may give information in his newspaper of what goes on at these meetings.

Hon. Members: No, no.

Mr. Nally: On a point of Order. Do I understand that the noble Lord is now suggesting that a certain journalist, namely, the editor of the "Daily Herald," is present for precisely the purpose of revealing confidential information? The Committee of Privileges, in its report, made it perfectly plain that he was not there for the purpose of revealing confidential information. If the noble Lord is going to repeat this allegation, may we have some guidance from you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether it is in Order for him to continue his speech, basing it on an assumption, and making an allegation, which has been denied by the Committee, that the editor of the "Daily Herald" was there for the improper purpose of getting and using information?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I doubt if the noble Lord suggested any improper purpose, but, whatever the Committee of Privileges found, is within the knowledge of hon. Members, and they will take note of it.

Earl Winterton: I suggested no such purpose. The hon. Member has been in a state of ecstatic excitement throughout my speech, and has not listened to what I said, despite my efforts to calm him. If he had been listening to what I said, he would know that I said that the party opposite were fully entitled to have the editor of the "Daily Herald" there and that he was fully entitled to be there. I said, nevertheless, and I repeat, that, by the terms of this Motion, it could be claimed that he was there for the purpose of disclosing confidential information, and that is my assertion. It may well be that a subsequent Government, when they are in office, will take exactly that view and will use this Motion to prevent a member of the Press of the party which is in Opposition from being present at their party meetings. I think we should hear much more about the real meaning of this Motion.
I rather regretted what I thought was the slightly admonitory tone of the Leader


of the House—I am sure he did not intend it to be—towards the Press. I come back again to the admirable speech by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, which was not a party speech. I think it is really deplorable that there should be any suggestion—and I hope there is not—that the Gallery, or the Lobby correspondents, need any admonitions from this House. There have been certain backsliders. They have been properly dealt with. They had to come to the Bar of the House, and were put through a very unpleasant experience. Let us admit that is so, but I hope it is not generally held that the members of that most honourable and ancient profession, the Gallery and Lobby journalists of this House, need any admonitions from this House as to what their conduct should be. There should certainly be conferences, if necessary, and discussions between them and us as to what should be done to meet the situation, but, surely, no admonitions.
Long experience of this House has taught me that the position and authority of the most powerful and important figures are very ephemeral. I have seen figures come into this House who rose to great positions, and who have left this House and become almost forgotten in two or three years' time. But what is not ephemeral is the life of this House and its institutions. It is as continuous and lasting as anything can be in a mutable world. I would admit that the Rules of Debate. Standing Orders, and the like, which sustain that life certainly need amendment from time to time. Nobody denies that. But they should never be altered merely because there has been a temporary lapse from the accepted standards of conduct by a couple of Members, which is why they are being altered on this occasion. There has been a temporary lapse from those high standards of conduct from a couple of Members, and that is the reason for this very dangerous Motion, which may be used by successive Governments as an engine against the Press and the House. I think it is a very great mistake. The effect of this Motion is to magnify that lapse of conduct on the part of two Members of this House, and it is both ridiculous and dangerous.

9.27 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I notice in this evening's "Evening Standard" that the Labour Party dissociated itself from

some Members who had sent a message to Germany. If the Labour Party is consistent, it will dissociate itself in the strongest possible manner from the speeches of the hon. Members for West Coventry (Mr. Edelman), and Huddersfield (Mr. Mallalieu). The Labour movement has never developed on the presumption that the capitalist Press plays fair or clean. The pioneers of the Labour movement had to strike with all their power against the "yellow Press" and the "lying Press" of this country. There never was a Labour Party Conference conducted from the attitude that the Press of this country was fair. Always there has been a demand made that the Labour Party must get its own Press, and be independent of the "yellow Press" of this country. I am sorry that the Amendment was not accepted. Before I go any further, I would point out to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mallalieu) that if he wants a gentleman's party, he will have to look to the other side.

Mr. Mallalieu: Since when has it been the policy of the Communist Party to attack fellow workers? The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) says that he is attacking the Press; what he is actually doing is attacking the members of the Lobby, who are his own fellow workers.

Mr. Gallacher: I have not yet got to the members of the Lobby; I am talking about the capitalist Press of this country, which is dominated by great Press barons with millions of money to spend, and who will use it in the most corrupt manner. They buy up all and sundry. I am sorry that the Amendment which I have on the Order Paper was not accepted because, following the events which gave rise to this Motion, there have been very strong rumours in this House, in Fleet Street, and in London generally. Some hon. Members might say that rumour is not sufficient on which to pass judgment. But let me remind the House that, only the other week, it was decided to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into what, happened in connection with the case of the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, because of the possibility of rumour. The Committee was appointed to make certain that such rumours would be effectively dealt with. There have been very grave rumours in connection with the ex-Member of this House who was expelled,


and the conditions in which the matter developed. There has been quite a lot of talk about some of the bigger fellows being involved in this business. I would like the Motion to be of such a character that it would not only be the editor and the journalist who would be present, but also the owner of the newspaper. After all, it is his money, and he knows how his money is being used.
I remember that, in 1906, when a group of Labour Members came to this House, the first thing that was done by the Press was to get at them, one after another, to try to buy them up. They were offered big money to write for the papers. It we are talking about corruptly taking money, there are hon. Members in this House who, merely as individuals, would not get paid for the articles they write for the capitalist Press. They are not paid big money by the capitalist Press because they are clever journalists; they are paid big money because they have the votes of the people, and are here as representatives of the people. If it was not for that fact, they would not be given even beans for the stuff they write.
I know associations of one kind or another who are always anxious to give Members of Parliament backhanders in order to get them to support this or that. I remember a colleague of mine, who is not here tonight, receiving money for a speech he made. He sent the money back. In the letter which was sent to him with the cheque, he was asked to get in touch with another hon. Member of this House, who was very serviceable to this particular association. I know that Lobby men are ordinary, decent, working-class fellows. The general body of Lobby men are good fellows. [Laughter.] There is nothing to laugh at in that. I have been associated with all kinds of journalists. Of course, most of them are not of the £1,000 or £2,000 a year type. I have had associations now and again with Lobby men, and I am quite satisfied that, in the main, they are decent chaps. I am quite certain that the Lobby man who was handing over some money now and again from his employer to an ex-Member of this House never dreamed that he was doing anything seriously wrong.
You can have corruption beginning, and developing from small things to big things without those who have taken the money actually realising what has been

happening. I remember the time when the Thomas case came up—I told them in the House—that Thomas was at one time an honest working man, thoroughly trusted by his workmates, and he was corrupted, but it takes someone to corrupt a man—he cannot corrupt himself. It took the fellows from the other side to corrupt Thomas. Thomas was an honest railwayman, trusted when he came here, and I would say to the Minister—

Earl Winterton: The hon. Gentleman has made a most serious charge against those sitting on this side of the House. He has laid a charge of corruption. It has always been held that a charge of that kind is out of Order. He should be asked to substantiate his charge or to withdraw it. He has made a charge of corruption, and I would say, incidentally, that I have never myself heard a more disgraceful attack upon a man outside this House not in a position to defend himself.

Mr. Speaker: I think really the charge of corruption was not made against any individual Member, but was a general charge. The hon. Member expresses himself somewhat extravagantly sometimes. While I regret that charge, because it should not be made against any side of the House, it does not create anything which one would call out of Order. We simply regret it.

Mr. Gallacher: I am not prepared to accept the suggestion of the noble Lord about withdrawing because I remember Alfred Butt, and Thomas had with him other Members on the other side of the House, but the fact always remains that working class representatives do not become corrupt by themselves, but become corrupt because there is somebody there ready to corrupt them. If we are going to deal with corruption I would like this Motion to cover the owners of the newspapers, the big Press lords. I am quite certain that if we could have had one or other of the Press lords brought before the House, in the recent case there was no reason why they should not have been implicated. I would like to see a Motion of such a character as would bring in the Press lords and would deal with corruption in a sense of those who are always anxious and ready to offer money to Members of Parliament to support this or that. We have had one or two incidents brought before the House but there are many more—

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: On a point of Order. I understand the hon. Member to say, first, that the Press lords are always ready to bribe Members of Parliament, and, secondly, that there are a great many more cases than have been brought before this House. I must declare my interest as a director of a newspaper and I would like to ask if either of those two accusations are in Order?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member must remember that the word "corruption" occurs in the Motion we are discussing and we had better see how this Debate develops.

Mr. Gallacher: All I said was that we should have had the Press lords here with the editor and the journalist; and then I said that I should like to include those associations that offer, or are ready to offer, money to Members of Parliament. We have had instances of this kind in this House, just as we have had instances in connection with the Press lords. We have had one or two Members who have come to this House and drawn attention to the fact that certain people or certain organisations have sent money. When my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) got a cheque, he did not think about raising it, he just sent the cheque back.

Mr. Nicholson: On a point of Order. The hon. Member is making what may be wild charges and maybe substantial charges. Will you, Mr. Speaker, make it quite clear that if any hon. Member knows of a bribe being offered to a Member of this House by anybody at all it is his duty to bring that to the notice of this House?

Mr. Speaker: I think that is perfectly clear from our proceedings in the past.

Mr. Nicholson: Then I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Member ought to be called upon either to substantiate his charges or to withdraw them.

Mr. Gallacher: I cannot recall the, different instances, but I will recall one—that of the hon. Member who used to sit on the third bench below the Gangway. I am talking about the last Parliament. That hon. Member—I forget which was his constituency, but his name was Reakes. [HON. MEMBERS: "He

sat for Wallasey."] That hon. Member in this House produced a letter telling there was a sum of money sent to him in order to get him to assist in pushing through some particular business. Then there were one or two instances besides, but I only say—

Mr. Nicholson: I did raise a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I asked for your guidance.

Mr. Speaker: I thought the hon. Gentleman was making an explanation before I gave an answer to the point of Order.

Mr. Gallacher: I was referring to the fact that instances have been disclosed in this House of associations, other than the Press, being prepared to offer money to Members of Parliament. Surely, when we are dealing with the Press we should be dealing with those, too. I do not remember all the instances, but I remember that particular one very clearly. That is the point I am making.

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Member was making his point. It may have been an unsavoury one, but I think he is entitled to make it. The answer, as I said before, is that we should wait to see how the Debate develops. These things can be better answered in Debate. They are far better answered in Debate than ruled out by a point of Order. I think it is better for those things to be answered in Debate, than by a Ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Gallacher: I was about to finish when hon. Members started jumping up on points of Order. In my opinion, the Motion, if it is to deal with corruptly accepting money, should apply not only to the Press but to the Press barons. It is not a question of the Lobby men, but of the Press barons. It should apply to any association or organisation of any kind that corruptly offers payment to Members of this House for the purpose of influencing their conduct in this House. It should apply to the Press barons who, while an hon. Member of this House has the support of the people and is elected to represent the people, gets in touch with an hon. Member, and offers him payment in order that that hon. Member may become an agent on their behalf for some of their Press organs. I am not now dealing with the ordinary journalists.


This is not a matter of skill at writing, but of inducing Members to sell the trust and confidence of the people. I suggest that this Motion should be broadened in order to include all these different phases of corrupt payment, not just the Press as something different from other types of organisation.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. McGovern: I must say, I should have thought it preferable not to have proceeded with a Motion of this kind, because it tends to create in the mind of the public the feeling that there is a large number of events of this kind, and that, therefore, the House is compelled to take some form of repressive action in order to stop it. Although two incidents occurred in recent months, the publicity which was given to the events in the House, to the findings of the Select Committee, and to the expulsion of one Member and the loss of prestige by another, would have been sufficient to deter the Press and any Member of Parliament from repeating the offences with which the two individuals concerned were charged on that occasion. Tonight, the Debate is almost enlarging upon the idea that that is the general practice of hon. Members. Indeed, the speech of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) tends to throw greater discredit on hon. Members than any other which has been made in this House for some time.
The danger which I see now is that hon. Members cann pass on information, although they may not be doing it in a corrupt manner, and may not be accepting payment. Only a week or two ago—and I have seen it on a number of occasions—the "Daily Worker" was giving reports of what had happened at Labour Party meetings in this House. Therefore, the "Daily Worker" must be guilty of one of two offences: Either it has a crypto in the Labour Party, who is reporting to it the proceedings—and the accurate proceedings—of Labour Party meetings, or it must be taking from the heinous capitalist Press reports appearing therein, and publishing them as true in the "Daily Worker." I admit it is a heinous offence for party members to attend a meeting as allegedly loyal members of that party, to hear the proceedings, and then to leave the room and

to report what has taken place at that meeting to another party, and have it published to the world, when the party holding the meeting does not desire it to be published.
Another form of corruption which has grown up, but which has never been mentioned, is that of taking delegations of Members of this House to other countries in order that they shall come back here, and very often sign their names to documents they have never even read in approval of the countries they have visited while engaged on a sort of Cook's tour. After all, we know that the Communist Party lives by poaching on other parties, by obtaining information about and using "stooges" in those parties. I remember a case in point, when the "Black Circular" was being fought in connection with the trade unions by the Labour Party, the party of which I was then a member, and the Communist Party. I was amazed when jimmy Maxton and I challenged Harry Pollitt, in this very building, about allowing two men to give undertakings that they were not members of the Communist Party: one was Figgins, the railwayman, and the other was Joe McMillan of Bridgeton in Glasgow.

Mr. Gallacher: I never rise when the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) speaks about the Communists, because I know his record. I will not say a word about Figgins, because he is alive, and can speak for himself as can Harry Pollitt, but Joe McMillan is dead, and he was one of the most open and honest Communists that ever trod the streets of Glasgow. He cannot speak for himself, and it is not right that statements of that kind should be made against him, when there is not a word of truth in them.

Mr. McGovern: I was not intending to cast any reflection on the dead, although I have heard the hon. Member cast a reflection on the dead many times. I wanted to show the line of conduct that could be carried on for political purposes. Harry Pollitt amazed us by saying: "Yes, I have instructed both members to deny that they were members of the Communist Party, although they were secret members." There is a great danger, because while Members may not be accepting money and may not be corrupt in the sense of the terms of this Motion, there could be the passing of information about this House, about meetings of the parties


and about any political associations that have been formed in the House. The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) is the last person in the world, coming from a party of that description, to make general accusations and allegations against Members in other parts of the House.
I think the Government are justified in bringing in the people responsible for the newspapers—I thought that on the last occasion—because there could have been no corruption if people were not prepared to pay money. Individuals do not, unless there is money in the form of a weekly or monthly allowance, offer to divulge information. I think it is correct to try to show that one line is not to be drawn for any breach on the part of a Member, and another for the Press of the country. I do not take tremendous exception to the general line of conduct of the Press. After all, the Press is the first line of defence of the Tory Party. The industrialists and financiers own the Press from the wealth they have obtained from the process of unpaid labour. They have invested this money in the Press to bolster up their interest in the Conservative Party. So long as that is generally understood by the community, it does not much matter. I would prefer even the weaknesses of the Press and the freedom of certain expressions in this country to the methods adopted by either the Communist Party or the "Daily Worker," which deals with its opponents in a most brazen manner, and misrepresents and vilifies them in every way. I was amazed with what happened at a meeting last Sunday night in the West of Scotland. There is a new kind of question being asked, which is: "Are you a supporter of Ernest Bevin, or a supporter of Zilliacus"? If that is to be the test for the next General Election, it will not be very difficult. If we are to proceed against not only the corrupt publication of information, but giving information at all, it should be an offence, whether it is done for the acceptance of money or anything else.
I would say this of the journalists in the House. In my 17½ years' experience I have found them a very decent lot of men. They have carried out a difficult task in a very fine manner. We know that with the pressure and competition there is today there is always a desire to get advance information that may be available from certain sources. But there

can be no recurrence of the kind of thing which happened in the House recently it Members are prepared to be honourable in their conduct, if they realise that they have a duty towards their party and towards this House, and that they should not give away information which they know their party and responsible leaders in the country do not desire them to give away. While I think it is deplorable that a Motion of this kind should require to be passed, I tend to treat the recent occurences as exceptions to the general rule.

9.56 p.m.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: With the closing words of the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) I am in most complete agreement. They go to the root of my whole criticism of this Motion. After all, the remedy of Members of this House lies in their own hands. The remedy, as the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mallalieu) said, is that we should conduct ourselves as gentlemen in politics should conduct themselves. The same remedy lies in the hands of the journalists. As I see it, the fundamental mistake behind this Motion is that it is an attempt to codify what is not susceptible to codification. It is an attempt to codify methods, actions, and standards of conduct which are really questions of taste.
I believe—and I say this with all respect to the House—that we are in danger of making fools of ourselves if we try to codify standards of conduct in that way. That is what is wrong with this Motion. It is as if we were trying to make a law laying down in what terms a man should speak to his wife when angered. Such a law would be perfectly easy to evade. The more we try to define it the more scope there is for evasion. That is my main reason for opposing this Motion. There is another reason, which has been referred to in this Debate. It is that if this Motion means anything at all it is extending Parliamentary Privilege to matters which are brought up in party meetings. Otherwise, it is absolutely meaningless. It may be an ill-expressed Motion in other ways, but the great danger of the Motion is that it makes many confidential discussions, concerning events that are to take place in this House a matter of Privilege. It does not even refer only to party meetings upstairs. It may be privileged if it is a discussion by two or three Members in a railway


carriage, or the Smoking Room, or anywhere else. I believe we are in danger of taking ourselves too seriously if we try to put into actual words matters which are questions of good taste. That, to put it briefly at this late hour, is my reason for hoping that the Government will not proceed with this Motion.
I have one other point. The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) introduced a new note into the Debate, which I do not think should pass unheeded. The hon. Member is not taken very seriously by this House. He is a popular and honourable individual, good natured, and his clowning is taken for what it is worth. But it should not go out from this House that any Member can, uncontradicted, rise in his place and say that Member after Member has been constantly offered bribes—not because that, by itself, is such a dangerous charge, but because there is an assumption that the Members offered bribes do not do anything about it. I deeply regret his speech. It was, I am sure, an attempt to discredit Parliament in the eyes of the people. 4 hope that the Leaders of this House on both sides will take the opportunity of emphasising that it is the duty of any hon. Member who is offered a bribe to call your attention to it, Mr. Speaker.

10.1 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): On the first Order of the Day, I made a speech about which the general complaint was that it was too short. I hope that the same complaint may be made about this speech. It is due to the House that, when replying to the Debate, I should take notice of some of the things that have been said, and endeavour to place before the House the reply of the Government to them. I regret that the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) is not in his place. The right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) examined this Motion verbally in the most meticulous manner. This is not an effort at legislation. It is a purely declaratory Resolution, so that the difficulty in which the House found itself a few weeks ago shall not arise again, if we can help it.

Mr. Piekthorn: Would the right hon. Gentleman explain how a purely declara-

tory Resolution can contain the word "will," used in the phrase
this House will take such action."?

Mr. Ede: It is a declaration of intention.

Mr. Pickthorn: That is not what declaratory means.

Mr. Ede: If the hon. Gentleman were to say to me, "I will pay you £5," not for the disclosure of confidential information, but for something for which I am entitled to receive £5, I should regard that as a declaration of intention. This is a declaration of the intention of the House if the circumstances should recur. Let me tell the House how the difficulty that was occasioned by the recent incident arose. It was not quite as the right hon. Member for Horsham said. This incident, which involved two hon. Members and two newspapers, arose on an issue of Privilege that was raised by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg), who quoted to the House certain passages from an article by Mr. Garry Allighan, in a rather obscure technical journal of the Press. The Committee of Privileges started to investigate that matter. The objectionable suggestion in the original article was that one could pick up information from Members of the House by standing them drinks in the bar, and when Members were in a somewhat fuddled condition they often said more than they realised. That is what the Committee of Privileges started out to deal with. In the course of their explorations, they discovered that certain other things had happened.
It was clearly stated by my right hon. Friend the Lord President and myself during the discussions that took place on the Motions that the Government submitted to the House arising from the Report of the Committee of Privileges that the actions which the House finally debated were questions of Privilege. There was, we said, dishonourable conduct, and hon. Members who were present during the Debate will recollect that when I was trying to explain that to the House, the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) interrupted me more than once to point out how serious were the charges I was making and that they were of dishonour and not breach of Privilege.
We do not claim that the matters to be dealt with under this Motion are an extension of Privilege. It was laid down by a


conference of the two Houses as long ago as 1704 that there could be no extension of Privilege, and although I sometimes think we might find there had been breaches of that declaration of intention, at any rate, by and large, it stands and there can be no increase or extension of the Privileges of this House. This evening it has been discussed as if the journalists should be dealt with apart from any offence by a Member of the House. The first thing that has to be established is that there has been an offence as described in the first part of the Motion, by a Member of the House. If an offence within the meaning of the first part of the Motion has been established, the second part of the Motion says that the House will proced to
take such action as it may, in the circumstances, think fit.
It is not a case of a breach of Privilege. The maximum penalty, I suggest, that can be inflicted in the circumstances would be that which was proposed in the first Motion that the Government submitted to the House. There would be a withdrawal of the right to use the Lobby, and other persons, who might be found to be associated with the act, or what were called in the Amendment the instigators of it, might also find themselves in the same jeopardy. At any rate, the person who actually paid the money would be liable to he dealt with by the House.
I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for West Coventry (Mr. Edelman) to give an assurance that before such action was taken against any journalist or other person who might come within the second part of the Motion, he should be given a chance of being heard. I am bound to say that I cannot imagine the House doing anything else. If it finds a Member guilty of accepting a bribe, and he says that the person who bribed him was So-and-So, I am quite sure that this Hotse would apply to such a man the general rule of English law—that before the House would find him guilty of the offence with which he is charged, it would give his a chance of stating his case. I have no hesitation at all in saying that, as far as the Government are concerned, they would intend that the person to be proceeded against under the second part of the Motion should have every chance of stating his case.
The noble Lord the Member for Horsham suggested that the proper thing to

do in the kind of case with which we have been dealing is for hon. Members to be dealt with by their own party. Undoubtedly, that would be so when the offence is one that is discovered by the party and is confined to actions involved in that party; but that was not the case in the two recent instances. The Labour Party did not discover that Mr. Garry Allighan and the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walkden) had been guilty of the dishonourable conduct of which the House subsequently adjudged them guilty. The Committee of Privileges, of which the noble Lord is a distinguished Member, itself came upon that offence in the course of pursuing a charge of breach of Privilege which was brought against Mr. Garry Allighan by the hon. Member for Oxford.
It may very well be that had the Labour Party itself discovered who were the people who were giving the information, or selling the information, they could have dealt with it as a matter of party discipline, but this was a case where the Committee of Privileges reported the whole of its discoveries to the House, including the disclosure of information by the two hon. Members of subjects that had been discussed at the party meeting, and therefore it was not possible—it might not be possible in a future case—to deal with them within the range of party discipline. The noble Lord has deprecated what he regarded as the admonitory statements to the Press made by my right hon. Friend the Lord President. I have no doubt that the Press fully understands my right hon. Friend. I have sometimes thought that the noble Lord himself—

Earl Winterton: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will quote me correctly. I said I was particularly anxious not to make an attack on his right hon. Friend, but it seemed to me that his phrases were rather admonitory. Perhaps the Home Secretary will tell us that the Government do not intend to administer a rebuke to the Press?

Mr. Ede: I think that my right hon. Friend, if he feels inclined to give the Press a little good advice, is perfectly entitled to do so. I am quite sure that nothing he said was intended to be taken as patronising, and I would have thought that the Press would probably be quite able to put its proper assessment on the


phraseology of the right hon. Gentleman. I have sometimes thought that the noble Lord himself has been rather admonitory in the attitude he has adopted towards this side of the House, but we know the noble Lord and we take it from whence it comes.
I suggest it is very desirable that there should be no doubt in the future as to what is to happen should there, unfortunately, be a recurrence of the incidents which gave rise to this chapter of events. There is, I think, among many Members of this House, if not among all hon. Members, the feeling that two men have been punished very severely for acts which were condemned by this House. Just as if there were no receivers, there would be no thieves, so if there were no bribers there would be no people taking bribes. It is not for me to assess in any given case who is the more blameworthy, the person who accepts the bribe, or the person who, being approached with the story that there is something confidential to sell, offers to buy it, or in fact buys it. I think it should be made quite clear in the future that if this House finds an hon. Member guilty of the offences of which these two were found guilty, it will also take appropriate action, and the Motion is purposely vaguely worded now so that it shall be open to the House to grade the punishment according to the magnitude of the offence as it judges it at the time. There should be no doubt that that further action will follow and that, after due hearing, the person offering the bribe will also he dealt with by the House.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Harold Macmillan: We have had in this Debate a very interesting discussion and a very full House, particularly during the last half hour or so. I would be the last to make any charge of corruption against the popular and beloved Patronage Secretary, but I cannot help feeling that some confidential information as to matters about to be proceeded with in the House must have reached him during the last half hour, for we have had the advantage of Members upon the Government Benches, especially upon the Government Front Bench, whom we would hardly have expected to see tonight if they had not been summoned at the appropriate moment by the appropriate methods. Whether the information

was obtained in one way or another, I cannot tell, but here we are.
One thing in the Debate which impressed itself upon my mind was that no Member—with one exception—has supported this Motion, except the right hon. Gentleman who moved it and the last speaker. The hon. Member for West-Coventry (Mr. Edelman) made a very interesting speech with great knowledge, and I got the impression that he was broadly against the Motion, although he would probably support it; he was against it as a journalist, but would support it as a party man. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mallalieu) charmed and delighted the House with his speech, full of knowledge of the long tradition of the relations between the Lobby and Members and, if I may say so, with a broad spirit of goodwill and sense which impressed all Members. He was against the Motion. There was one unusual supporter for the right hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). He was the sole, solitary man from amongst the Members to support the Government from their side, but of course he was quickly dealt with by the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern). If I may say so, as a fairly impartial observer of this contest, the hon. Member for West Fife was completely shot down by the hon. Member for Shettleston.
The House, I am sure, wishes to come to a decision, but I would make this appeal to the Leader of the House, if I may have his attention for a moment. I was rather sorry that he ended his introductory speech by telling us—after all, it was the first speech of the day—that, unlike the other occasions upon which we have had to discuss these distressing matters—distressing to all Members of the House who love the House of Commons—he had decided not to listen to the arguments, not to let the House weigh them from the House of Commons point of view, but that the Whips would he put on whatever the character of the Debate. That was rather a pity, and rather contrary to the tradition of the House on a subject of this kind, where we are really not here making party speeches about each other—

Mr. H. Morrison: You are.

Mr. Macmillan: The right hon. Gentleman might have said that he would at least wait until the end of the Debate


before he decided whether to put on the Whips, but he said it at the very beginning, and it is contrary to the way in which we have normally discussed these matters. I make an appeal to him, even at this late hour, to reconsider that point.
I want to be fair over this matter, and I can see what are the arguments for a Motion of this kind in the minds of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. They feel, perhaps we all feel, that it is rather unfair that the two hon. Members should have been so cruelly and harshly punished—for it is a terrible punishment, nothing could be worse, and we can imagine what a terrible situation it is—and that there should be no broad censure on those who have been equally guilty in having tempted them to fall into this error. We dealt with that when you, Mr. Speaker, summoned to the Bar, admonished, and received an explanation and apology from the editor and the other person concerned, who were responsible. We have dealt with that incident—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."],—in the case of the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walk-den), of which I am speaking.

Mr. Ede: I think the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten that they were called to the Bar because they declined to disclose to the Committee of Privileges who was their informant. After that, they were not dealt with by the House.

Mr. Macmillan: The right hon. Gentleman accepted that refusal to give evidence, for which they apologised, and the Leader of the House did not proceed with any further case against them. The House did not take any further action in the matter and, therefore, it is thought we should make some public declaration now to mark our objection and our animadversion against anyone who puts these temptations in the way of hon. Members. That is the object of the declaration.

Mr. Cecil Poole: Mr. Cecil Poole (Lichfield) rose—

Mr. Macmillan: I will not be very long. There are one or two points I wish to put, because the right hon. Gentleman has not answered them. What does this Motion really mean? My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gains-borough (Captain Crookshank) went through it point by point, and I hoped

that the Solicitor-General would give some meaning to the phrases in it. But the Home Secretary got out of it rather well. He said that as it is purely declaratory, and not legislative, in which case it would have to be precise, it can be obscure, and no one minds very much; so long as it has a vague general meaning that is good enough. But I do not think it is good enough that the House of Commons at a time like this, after all this discussion, should pass a Motion without it being clear to the House and the public what the Motion means.
What is the meaning of "corruptly accepting payment," and how does that differ from
corruptly accepting payment for the disclosure … of confidential information.
I am not a lawyer, but to anyone who studies the English language the meaning is that there are two ways of accepting payment for disclosing confidential information, a corrupt way and an incorrupt way. Can anyone tell me what is the incorrupt way, the proper way of disclosing confidential information? Does declaratory mean that, like Humpty-Dumpty, we make the word mean what we like? I see the object of that, but it is not suited to a declaration of the House of Commons, however suited it may be to a declaration of a dabating society, or some other less important body than ourselves.
What is "publication"? Is it publication in the legal sense? The Solicitor-General knows very well what publication means in the legal sense. It does not mean publication in a book or newspaper. Publication in a legal sense may be by a letter or postcard. That means a publication which amounts to libel or slander, or what does publication mean? Thirdly, what is the exact meaning of the expression:
… matters to be proceeded with in Parliament…
In the whole course of the Debate nobody has attempted to discuss or explain that. I give a very simple explanation. It is quite common for the newspapers to give some indication before a big Debate—a week before, or some days before—of what Members on both sides, especially what protagonists on both sides, are to conduct the Debate. They have no right to do so. It rests entirely with you, Mr. Speaker, what hon. Members will be called. But


I have seen a fairly accurate prognostication about who are likely to be the speakers on the Government and Opposition sides. Those, of course, are proceedings likely to come before the House, and to be dealt with by Parliament. Would someone who gave out information in this way fall under censure if he was paid for doing so, or would that come within the incorrupt method of disclosing information, still for payment, but incorruptly?

Mr. George Porter: On a point of Order. Is the right hon. Gentleman in Order in discussing matters that are relevant to a charge which was made against a Member, and not in regard to a person to whom the Motion refers, namely, the person responsible for offering payment?

Mr. Speaker: I am bound to say that I think the right hon. Gentleman is quite in Order. He is discussing the Motion which is before the House.

Mr. Macmillan: It seems to me, therefore, that that ought to be cleared up.
Then we come to the next point, what is "confidential"? Does a confidential meeting in this House mean a meeting consisting only of Members of Parliament, or does it mean a group of Members who meet, as we all do, to discuss matters in which we are interested—foreign, Colonial or home affairs—or the meeting of a whole party? Does it mean if it is a meeting at which there are only Members present, because we know from the reports of Debates and of the Select Committee, other persons than Members are commonly admitted. Curiously enough, these other people are not, as one might expect, professors of the London School of Economics, or worthy men who are there to give the benefit of their advice, but the editor of the "Daily Herald," that in-corrupt but still interested figure, who attends the weekly meeting of the party opposite. That poses a curious picture of what is supposed to be confidential.
Surely, the real truth is we cannot make rules about what are matters of ordinary decent behaviour. As has been said, we cannot tie down into a code how honourable men ought to behave. The more we try to do it, the more absurd it becomes. Alter all this talk, and after all these

splendid expressions, what are we to do? At the end of this tremendous declaratory Motion, as the Home Secretary rightly called it, what are we to do? When one of these cases happens, we are to take such action as, in the circumstances, we may "think fit." What a terrible and what a formidable weapon. Never has such anathema been launched upon a wondering people as this terrifying thing "We will do what we think fit." It remindsme of the argument which my mother used when, at the last stage, none of us would do anything we were told. She said, "I will tell your father, and he will take very strong action." [An HON. MEMBER: "Did it work?"] No, he never did anything.
In all these circumstances what is the object of this Motion? What has been achieved today by the Leader of the House putting this Motion before us? All we have done, in the public mind and in the mind of foreign countries, has been to rake up all this dirt again. In the Debate about all these affairs, which most of us hoped would be past and forgotten, the only beneficiary and the only supporter of the Government was the Communist Party—people who do not like Parliamentary life, who want to cause it to be believed that all Parliamentary assemblies consist of a lot of crooks and rascals on both sides, and that the whole thing is pretty well in its decline and cannot be maintained. It was noticeable that Communist Member who spoke was the only Private Member to support the Government during the whole course of these proceedings.
The House will divide on this Motion if the Leader of the House insists on pressing it, and the Motion will be carried and it will he put on paper that we have solemnly told all sinners, if these things ever should happen, what we think we ought to do, and then we will certainly do it. I venture to ask the Leader of the House to think once more. Why is it really necessary? After all, we have got on pretty well since the Press first became powerful a hundred years ago, and there has been no trouble that I know of. I have been nearly 20 years in the House and I remember nothing of this kind happening and we hope and pray nothing ever will happen again. Surely, there is no object in raking it up again in the public eye. It would have


been far better if the right hen. Gentleman, after the Debate, had withdrawn the Motion and not brought it back again, but left this code where it ought to lie, on the conscience and good conduct of all Members, and on the long tradition of our good relations with the reputable newspapers represented in this House.

10.33 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. H. Morrison): I imagine the House is now ready to come to a decision about this matter, but the right hon. Gentleman has asked me whether at the last moment I would be willing to take the Whips off. If I may say so, I thought the speech of the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) was to the point. I did not agree with him," but the speech was not a party political speech. I think if anybody was going to make that appeal, it would have come better from him than from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan), who has just made a partisan speech.

Earl Winterton: On a point of Order. May I point out that the right hon. Gentleman has already spoken. Surely he can only speak a second time by permission of the House.

Mr. Speaker: The noble lord is in error, I am afraid. The right hon. Gentleman has the right to make a second speech.

Mr. Morrison: It is amazing how often the Father of the House is wrong on a matter of procedure.

Earl Winterton: I am entitled to ask a question and to raise a point of Order.

Mr. Morrison: The Father of the House should not lose his temper. Either it is amazing or it is not amazing, according to one's point of view. The right hon. Gentleman, having made this highly partisan speech—

Earl Winterton: Nonsense, absolute nonsense!

Mr. Morrison: —has asked the Government to take the Whips off. The Opposition Whips have been on the doors for some hours. The whole party machine is ticking over as well as it is capable of ticking over, and I cannot see any reason to take the Whips off. If this

was a matter of an individual case of a Member where the House was giving justice, I think that would have been a fair request. Indeed up to now in this Parliament the Whips have been off on such cases. They were off on the last occasion, but I am bound to say that, although they were off, the Opposition on certain Divisions had a remarkable degree of solidarity. But so far as the Government was concerned the Whips were off.
On this occasion, the issue is perfectly simple, and I do not see why it should be elevated into confusion, as the right hon. Member for Bromley has tried to elevate it. He is perfectly entitled to confuse himself, and to enjoy himself in the process. The Motion is perfectly simple. It is a declaration, and it need not be drafted in legal terms, that in certain circumstances the House will take serious account of an incident, if that incident is repeated, and will then pass judgment on the case, as it thinks fit in all the circumstances of the case. That is all the Motion means. What is it for? It is needed because on this last occasion the House found itself in the position of not being able to come to a conclusion about the cases to which I have referred—namely, the cases of the newspapers—because there was reason to feel that they could justly plead that they were not aware that a Parliamentary offence was being committed.
It really is right that the House should have a prima facie right to proceed in these cases, because it is intolerable that an hon. Member should be ruined as a result of actions jointly with other parties who then get off scot-free. Unless a Motion of this kind is carried tonight the Leader of the House on any future occasion will be in precisely the same situation as I was in. All we are establishing is that the House will be free to judge the matter, after fair consideration, and presumably with the help of a report from the Committee of Privileges.
The only other point I would mention is that there is a tendency in some quarters, even on this side of the House, to elevate any question with regard to the Press as if there was something terrible about it. I have as much respect and affection for the Press as any hon. Member, but I cannot think that, when two Members of Parliament have


been politically ruined, the House cannot make a declaration of this kind as to its future intentions. If there is a tendency in some quarters to elevate the rights and privileges of the Press even beyond the privileges of Parliament, I suggest that is intolerable. I am, on the whole, proud of the upright record of the British Press and of the good relations between the Lobby and Members of the House; but the House has a right to lay down a principle and to give notice that in the future it must consider acting in the way which I have indicated, after fairly considering the matter in the light of the circumstances of the case. I hope that the House, having had a fair Debate about this matter, will be good enough to come to a decision, and I hope that it will see its way to pass this Motion.

10.39 p.m.

Mr. Eden: I do not want to delay the decision of the House at this late hour, but there were one or two observations by the right hon. Gentleman about which I would like to make the position of my hon. Friends and myself clear. I feel very much that this is not a party matter, but very deeply a Parliamentary matter. I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that the suggestion that the Whips should be taken off was made at the outset of the discussion by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank). So the right hon. Gentleman's strictures upon my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) were, I thought, undeserved. No one understands Parliamentary banter better than the Leader of the House. If he had heard himself earlier tonight he might have felt differently about my right hon. Friend's speech, which I felt was perfectly fair comment.
Let us try for a moment or two to see where we are going in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman said that the next occasion, should it ever arise—and must we visualise it will ever arise?—[Interruption.] Well, hon. Members must remember that we have gone on a long time without its ever having arisen before. But, let us take that supposition. The right hon. Gentleman says that Parliament must have the necessary guidance as to what it is to do; but this

Motion is not going to make the slightest difference to what Parliament is to do, should the occasion arise. Without this Motion it is open to Parliament, in the light of what happened in the case of the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walkden) and the case of Mr. Allighan, to pass any decisions against anybody who is party to affairs such as those recently before us.

Mr. H. Morrison: Would the right hon. Gentleman allow me? If that is the position in the future, without this Motion, then presumably it was so in the cases with which we are concerned, without any Motion. Will the right hon. Gentleman answer me this? If I had come forward with a Motion after the cases of the hon. Member for Doncaster and Mr. Allighan in favour of excluding from the Lobby the newspapers involved, would he have supported it on behalf of the Opposition?

Mr. Eden: If the right. hon. Gentleman thought it right to bring forward such a Motion, it would have been entirely within his powers to do so.

Mr. Morrison: But would the right hon. Gentleman have supported it?

Mr. Eden: I must remind the right. hon. Gentleman that there are two issues, and we must distinguish between them. First of all, is the House of Commons entitled to do something, and, secondly, if it is, is it prepared to do it? [Interruption.] Surely hon. Members can see that. What I am arguing is that, if the Leader of the House had wanted to bring forward a Motion it was absolutely within his power, as Leader of the House, to have done so.

Mr. Morrison: I want an answer to the question. If I had brought forward such a Motion to withdraw facilities to correspondents, would the right hon. Gentleman have supported it with the Opposition, or would he have voted against it? Would he have argued that as the newspapermen would not have known they had committed an offence which brought this penalty, they ought not to be punished?

Mr. Eden: That is a fair question, and whether we accepted the right hon. Gentleman's argument or not would lie with the merits of the case. It would not lie on this Motion at all. Surely he knows that the House has complete power over its own actions.

Mr. Morrison: This is the test. The right hon. Gentleman knew, and knows, the merits of the case, and, therefore, it is only reasonable that he should give an answer, as he is fully competent to do.

Mr. Eden: I am very sorry. Will the right hon. Gentleman repeat the last part of what he said?

Mr. Morrison: What is the matter with the House? The point which I put is that the right hon. Gentleman knew and knows the merits of the cases—they have been fully reported upon—and I want to know whether, if I had brought forward such a Motion, he would have supported it or not?

Mr. Eden: The right hon. Gentleman is, with respect, not entitled to ask that question—[Interruption.] Someone claps his hands, but when he has been here as long as I, he will know that we are still an assembly of free men. I am trying to deal seriously with what older Members of the House will realise is an important Parliamentary issue. It is no good hon. Members treating the matter in that derisory fashion. I ask the Prime Minister to consider this matter. Of course the Leader of the House in these matters—which are not party matters—which affect the conduct of hon. Members, is entitled to bring before us any Motion he likes about the conduct of hon. Members. We are still free men. I will vote and my hon. Friends will vote on the merits of the particular case. Why does the right hon. Gentleman gesticulate? Is not that the right basis to vote on?
What the right hon. Gentleman is now doing is to ask me to express an opinion as to what I would have done in a case already pronounced on by this House. Of course I am not prepared to do anything of the kind now. Does he think  should? After the whole business has been settled in this House he asks me to come down and say what I would do. I ask if anyone thinks that is the sort of thing I should do? I am amazed. I say this to the Prime Minister: This is really a Parliamentary matter and there is no power which this Motion gives him that does not exist already. If either the last or previous case should arise again, any Leader of the House—the right hon. Gentleman or anyone else—could come down to the House and say: this is the

action which I, as Leader of the House, ask and advise the House to take. Then the House would judge the issue on the merits.
The right hon. Gentleman has no right to ask the House to judge an issue except on the merits of the individual case. That seems to me to be what he is trying to edge us into. If not, what is the use of this Motion, since we can do all these things without it? There is not the slightest part of it we cannot carry out. [HON. MEMBERS: "Then why object?"] I am trying to answer every question. If the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport feels I have not answered something, will he tell me?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. James Callaghan): I will, with great pleasure. I did not say a word.

Mr. Eden: I can only congratulate the hon. Gentleman on physical exercise on a soundless basis. His mouth was opening and shutting without anything coming out. I apologise. I must have misunderstood him.
I do reiterate the appeal which was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough. It would be a pity if we had to take a decision of this kind with the party Whips on. I can only say for my hon. Friends and myself that should a similar case arise again, we would judge any Motion which the Leader of the House brought before us on the merits of that Motion. We would not exclude, necessarily, action of the kind here suggested, but I do not think any valuable purpose is served by trying to define our future course in circumstances which no one can now foretell.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that there is some virtue in these declarations. At the beginning of every Parliament there is a Sessional Order which declares that in the event of certain action—I think it is in relation to bribery—the House will deal with the offenders.

10.49 p.m.

Mr. Nally: I do not intend to keep the House unduly at this time of night, but I hope most Members of the House will not think it inappropriate if I have a word or two on this Motion. It


was from a supplementary question—which I had to withdraw, and rightly to withdraw—alleging bribery against one of the "Express" newspapers groups that this great chain of events, culminating in this discussion tonight, arose. I, therefore, claim to have almost a proprietary interest in this Debate and what preceded it, considering that I initiated it. The Home Secretary was perfectly right when he said that this is a quite simple matter of the thief and the receiver. The party opposite can be congratulated on one thing, and that is that, so far in the Debate the name of the "Evening Standard" has been mentioned only once, and the name of the "Evening Standard" editor not at all.
By and large, the Debate has revolved around unrealities brought, typically, by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) and that dilapidated d'Artagnan the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) who sits next to him. These unrealities, this logic-chopping, this use of words does not alter the fact that my constituents at any rate will fully understand what the Motion means. This Motion says in effect that, although for varied reasons it was not possible or convenient in the two past cases so to act, in future this House decides, and is going to decide, that where there is a thief there is also a receiver to be dealt with. A good deal of talk was made on the other side about protecting Lobby correspondents. The "Evening Standard" has a first rate Lobby correspondent in Mr. William Alison who was accredited to the House on behalf of the "Evening Standard." What does the "evening Standard" do? The "Evening Standard" went behind that political correspondent's back secretly to secure the services of an M.P. to do what was part of Mr. Alison's work—

Mr. Speaker: I do not see what the "Evening Standard" has got to do with this Motion. Hon. Members are getting wide indeed.

Mr. Nally: I am going to submit, with great respect, that during the Debate tonight there have been several references to the fact that the position of Lobby correspondents is adversely affected by the Motion before us.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member carefully said at the beginning that the "Evening Standard" was not mentioned except by reference, only once. Therefore it is a great mistake to bring in now extraneous matter which would prolong the Debate for I do not know how long.

Mr. Nally: May I put it in this way? If a newspaper bribes a Member of Parliament irrespective of party to take the place of the legitimate correspondent of that newspaper, that paper is guilty not only of an offence against the House, but of an offence against ail the rules of conduct governing relation between Press and Parliament.

Mr. Speaker: This is not a case in which individual papers can be named and charges made against them. This is a Motion of a general character.

Mr. Nally: If that is so, and I cannot mention the newspaper, may I ask your guidance as to how I can deal with the general principles?

Mr. James Hudson: On a point of Order. You are ruling, Mr. Speaker, that an individual newspaper must not be named in this Debate. Are you aware that during the Debate, the "Daily Worker" has been referred to several times?

Mr. Speaker: I hope I have made it clear that I think it is a great mistake to single out any individual newspaper to make an attack on it on this Motion which does not mention any particular newspaper. I heard what was said about the "Daily Worker." It was not a general attack on that paper.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that an attack was made on the "Daily Worker" that it was lying and slanderous and so on—a long-winded attack of a kind we are very much accustomed to, coming from an unreliable source.

Mr. Speaker: That just shows how dangerous it is to bring in the name of a single newspaper and introduce a note of controversy when the House is ready to come to a decision. I am quite sure it is in the best interests of the House to come to a decision now. I hope the hon. Member will take my hint.

Mr. Nally: The original Committee of Privileges Report arose from a comment of mine. This Motion arises from all the decisions of the House subsequently taken. Are you ruling, Sir, that it is wrong for me to mention the name of the newspaper involved in the transactions that went before?

Mr. Speaker: It is quite irrelevant to the present Motion and I therefore do say so.
Question put:
That, if in any case hereafter a Member shall have been found guilty by this House of corruptly accepting payment for the disclosure and publication of confidential information about matters to be proceeded with in Parliament, any person responsible for offoring such payment shall incur the grave displeasure of this House; and this House will take such action as it may, in the circumstances, think fit:
The house proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Nally: (seated and covered): On a point of Order. May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker. I was on my feet and had resumed my seat when you rose. I was given no opportunity, so far as I could see, to phrase my speech to meet your requirements which I was perfectly prepared to do. I would be grateful, Sir, if you would explain why, therefore, I was not permitted to resume my speech when I was perfectly willing to make it

in accordance with what were, I thought, your rather severe strictures on the few words I said.

Mr. Speaker: There were various points of Order raised with which I thought I had dealt and then, as no one had risen to his feet, I put the Question as I was entitled to do, and I had collected the voices before any protest was raised. The voices having been collected, the matter had to proceed. I am sorry, but if I had known that the hon. Member was prepared to continue his speech and obey my Ruling, I might have been a little more lenient. But the matter was about to cause difficulty td arise, and I thought it best to get on with the proceedings. I hope the hon. Member will accept that point of view.

Mr. Nally: Of course I accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I do wish to say I am bound to feel a sense of personal injustice about it.

Mr. Speaker: I hope the hon. Member will realise that once I had collected the voices, there was no other opportunity for him to speak. I did think there was some discordant note arising which might cause us to have an irrelevant and not instructive Debate. Therefore, I used my discretion.

The House divided: Ayes. 287: Noes, 123.

Division No. 46.]
AYES.
[10.56 p.m.


Acland, Sir R.
Brook, D. (Halifax)
Diamond, J.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Dodds, N. N.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Brown, George (Belper)
Donovan, T.


Alpass, J. H.
Buchanan, G.
Driberg, T. E. N.


Anderson, A (Motherwell)
Burden, T. W.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)


Anderson, F. (Whitshaven)
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Dumpleton, C. W.


Attewell, H. C.
Callaghan, James
Durbin, E. F. M.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C R
Carmichael, James
Dye, S.


Austin, H. Lewis
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Awbery, S. S.
Champion, A. J.
Edelman, M.


Ayles, W. H.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Edwards, John (Blackburn)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Cobb, F. A.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)


Bacon, Miss A.
Cocks, F. S.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)


Baird, J.
Coldrick, W.
Evans, John (Ogmore)


Baifour, A.
Collindridge, F.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)


Barstow, P G.
Collins, V. J.
Ewart, R.


Barton, C
Colman, Miss G. M.
Fairhurst, F.


Bechervaise, A. E
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Farthing, W. J.


Benson, G
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W)
Fernyhough, E.


Berry, H.
Corlett, Dr. J.
Field, Capt. W. J.


Bing, G. H. C
Corvedale, Viscount
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)


Binns, J.
Cove, W. G
Follick, M.


Blenkinsop, A
Daggar, G
Forman, J. C.


Blyton, W. R
Daines, P.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.


Boardman, H
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Gallacher, W.


Bottomley A. G.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Gibbins, J.


Bowles, F. G (Nuneaton)
Davies, S. O (Merthyr)
Gibson, C. W.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Deer, G.
Gilzean, A.


Braddock, T (Mitcham)
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)


Bramall, E. A.
Delargy, H. J.
Goodrich, H. E.




Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Maclean, N (Govan)
Skeffington, A. M.


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
McLeavy, F.
Skinnard, F. W.


Grenfell, D. R.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Grey, C. F.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Marquand, H. A.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Snow, J. W.


Gunter, R. J.
Medland, H. M.
Solley, L. J.


Guy, W. H.
Mellish, R. J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F


Hale, Leslie
Mikardo, Ian.
Stamford, W.


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Mitchison, G. R.
Steele, T.


Hannan, W. (MaryhilI)
Monslow, W.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Hardy, E. A.
Moody, A. S.
Stross, Dr. B.


Harrison, J.
Morley, R.
Stubbs, A. E.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Sylvester, G. O.


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Morrison, Rt. Hon H. (Lewisham, E.)
Symonds, A. L.


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Mort, D. L.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Herbison, Miss M.
Moyle, A.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Hobson, C. R.
Murray, J. D.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Bannet)


Holman, P.
Nally, W.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Naylor, T. E.
Thomas, I. O. (VVrekin)


House, G.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Hoy, J.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Hubbard, T.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Hudson, J. H. (Eating, W.)
Oldfield, W. H.
Thurtle, Ernest


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Oliver, G. H.
Tiffany, S.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Timmons, J


Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Titterington, M. F.


Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Pargiter, G. A.
Turner-Samuels, M


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Parker, J.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool, Edge Hill)
Parkin, B. T.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Pearson, A.
Viant, S. P.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Perrins, W.
Walker, G. H.


Janner, B.
Piratin, P
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Jay, D. P. T.
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Warbey, W. N.


Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Watkins, T. E.


John, W.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Price, M. Philips
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Proctor, W. T.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Pryde, D. J.
Wheatley, J. T. (Edinburgh, E.)


Keenan, W.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Kendall, W. D.
Randall, H. E.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Kenyon, C.
Ranger, J.
Wilcook, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


King, E. M.
Rankin, J.
Wilkes, L.


Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr E.
Rees-Williams, D. R.
Wilkins, W. A.


Kinley, J.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Lang, G.
Richards, R.
Willey, O. G (Cleveland)


Lawson, Rt. Hon. J, J.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Lee, F. (Hulme)
Robens, A.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Leonard, W.
Rogers, G. H. R.
Williamson, T.


Levy, B. W.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Willis, E.


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Royle, C.
Wills, Mrs, E. A.


Lindgren, G. S.
Sargood, R.
Wise, Major F J


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Scollan, T.
Woodburn, A.


Longden, F.
Scott-Elliot, W.
Woods, G. S.


Lyne, A. W.
Segal, Dr. S.
Yates, V. F.


McAdam, W.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Zilliacus, K.


McEntee, V. La T
Sharp, Granville



McGhee, H. G.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


McGovern, J.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Mr. Popplewell and


Mack, J. D.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Mr. Richard Adams.


McKinlay, A. S.
Simmons, C. J.





NOES.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Carson, E.
Drayson, G. B.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Challen, C.
Drewe, C.


Baldwin, A. E.
Channon, H.
Duncan, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (City of Lond.)


Barlow, Sir J.
Clarke, Col. R. S.
Duthie, W. S.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Eccles, D. M.


Bennett, Sir P.
Cole, T. L.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.


Birch, Nigel
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Fletcher, W. (Bury)


Bossom, A. C.
Crowder, Capt. John E.
Fox, Sir G.


Bowen, R.
Cuthbert, W. N.
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Davidson, Viscountess
Gage, C.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr J. G.
De la Bère, R.
Gammans, L. D.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Digby, S. W.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Gridley, Sir A.


Butcher, H. W.
Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Grimston, R. V.







Hannon, Sir P (Moseley)
Maude, J. C.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Haughton, S. G.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Spence, H. R.


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Studholme, H. G.


Herbert, Sir A. P.
Nicholson, G.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Hollis, M. C.
Nield, B. (Chester)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd'tn. S.)


Howard, Hon. A.
Nutting, Anthony
Teeling, William


Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Odey, G. W.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Touche, G. C.


Jarvis, Sir J.
Osborna, C.
Turton, R. H.


Jeffreys, General Sir G
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Vane, W. M. F.


Jennings, R.
Pickthorn, K.
Wakefleld, Sir W. W.


Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Pitman, I. J.
Walker-Smith, D.


Lambert, Hon. G.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Prescott, Stanley
Wheatley, Col. M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Rayner, Brig. R.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Reid, Rt. Hon J. S. C. (Hillhead)
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Renton, D.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


McCallum, Maj. D.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Roberts, Major P. G. (Ecclesall)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)
York, C.


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Ropner, Col. L.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)



Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Sanderson, Sir F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Manningham-Butler, R. E.
Scott, Lord W.
Commander Agnew and


Marples, A. E.
Shephard, S. (Newark)
Major Conant.

Resolved:
That, if in any case hereafter a Member shall have been found guilty by this House of corruptly accepting payment for the disclosure and publication of confidential information about matters to be proceeded with in Parliament, any person responsible for offering such payment shall incur the grave displeasure of this House; and this House will take such action as it may, in the circumstances, think fit.

BRITISH TEXTILES (EXPORT MARKETS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Simmons.]

11.7 p.m.

Mr. Sidney Shephard: After the excitement of the last hour I want to draw the attention of the House to a subject of equal importance—the closed export markets. I noticed in the Press tonight that the President of the Board of Trade is now on his way back from Russia. I hope he has a treaty in his bag. Russia wants our machinery, and we want her timber and wheat, and it should not be beyond the wit of man to effect an agreement between our two countries. But Russia is not the only country with which we want to see freer trade, and in that respect I am glad to hear that the Paymaster-General is undertaking special duties as Britain's travelling salesman overseas.
A subject such as this cannot be discussed in half an hour and I shall be touching only that fringe of it and limit-

ing myself to that part affecting the textile trade, including hosiery, lace and made-up wearing apparel. Of course, all industries today are coming up against that problem. Only yesterday there was in the "Daily Mail" a short article referring to a firm named Douglas (Kings-wood), Ltd., which said that dismissal notices had been served on 300 employees of that firm because of the freezing of foreign markets. This firm makes motor cycles. They said they had r, 1,100 motor cycles ordered by Denmark, and were prevented from making delivery because they could not get an import licence. Whatever the Minister may say in his reply, I look upon this Debate only as a curtain raiser, and I hope that before long the Government will give time to review the whole position.
The contribution which that textile industry is making to our balance of payments is very substantial. Out of exports of £912 million, £186 million were for textiles-20 per cent. of the whole, and a larger share than any other single group of industries. Further, that was despite the fact that the volume of exports of textiles in 1946, on which these figures are based, were only 45 per cent. of the 1937 figure. Had we been able to export the same volume of textiles in 1946 as we did in 1937 there would have been £300 million more sterling coming to us as a result of those sales. That would have gone, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, half way towards closing our adverse gap.
That is a very ample reason why everything possible should be done to open the world markets, and that, of course, is not a matter for the manufacturer. That is entirely a Government responsibility. The industry can produce the goods and possibly produce them at the right price, but it cannot find the markets. That, as I have said, is entirely a Government responsibility. The position today is that many markets are closed and others are partially closed. Producers are beginning to get very worried whether they will achieve their 1948 export targets. I cannot give the House a better overall picture of the situation as it applies to this particular trade than to quote from the speech of Lord Hollenden to the Wholesale Traders and Hosiery Export Group. He said:
The Government set the target figures but to reach them, it must give us entry into the desired markets. Where can we find countries willing to take British textiles? For all practical purposes the whole of Central and South America is closed, and no import licences axe given for consumer goods. Sweden and Portugal are in the same position. Switzerland offers little hope. It is true that U.S.A. and Canada are open and free to buy without restriction, but it is common knowledge to all exporters that in both countries there is definite sales resistance to our goods. South Africa, Australia and New Zealand have always been fruitful fields for British textiles, but their present economic position has restricted their buying power. The Colonies, always important markets for textiles, are still, as far as we can see, willing to buy, but on instructions from the British Government no import licences for textile consumer goods are being granted. Denmark, Norway and Holland are able to import little or nothing. The Danes say, 'If you cannot buy our bacon and eggs, how can we buy your hosiery and other textiles?' I could go round the world's markets and the picture would be the same. India is closed, so is Egypt and even Iceland. All this is common knowledge to every exporter and to the Board of Trade, and what we ask the President of the Board of Trade is, how are we to reach his export targets unless something is done and done quickly to open to British traders those markets now closed.
I think that extract adequately makes out the case.
I have here a memorandum which was presented to the Export Promotion Department of the Board of Trade by the Hosiery and Knit Wear Export Group. That industry has been seta target of £21 million and is capable of achieving it if markets are open. It lists 36 countries, six of them are closed completely, ten of

them partly open, but import licences are required, and that means that they are virtually closed. In the remaining countries most of them are only open for small quantities of specialised goods. It seems to me that it is about time that this matter was aired in the House. It is a gloomy picture wherever we look, and very depressing to producers trying to reach their targets. I hope that the Minister who is to reply is going to dissipate some of the fears and give an indication of what action the Government are taking in this matter.

11.15 p.m.

Major Haughton: In support of what my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Shephard) has said, I have prepared a statement which I have in my hand, showing the import regulations in force and the import duties which are levied on the importation of piece goods and fabrics in various countries. The facts are far too detailed and long to be debated at this time of night, but there are some general conclusions that can be deduced from them. I think we have to start with the fact that, although it is easy to set targets, the targets that have been set for export markets are impossible, because, for various reasons, it is impossible to obtain import licences to certain countries. My hon. Friend has decribed some of the barriers, which exist in the South American countries, Scandinavia, and Russia, which lands together amount to half the world. Since it is well nigh impossible to export rayon piece goods to any of those countries we have to turn our attention for the time being to the other half of the world.
Australia has a population of about 7,000,000; New Zealand a population of not more than 2,000,000; South Africa not more than 2,000,000 whites; and Eire not more than 3,000,000. If we add Southern Rhodesia, Ceylon, Newfoundland, Malta, British Guiana and the West Indies we have a market of people numbering—even if we take the whole lot together—not much more than that of one of the big cities of the United Kingdom. The new arrangements that have been made at Geneva—and I should like to pay a very warm tribute to what has been done there—will, of course, be of the greatest possible assistance to the export of linen goods to the United States. The last thing the business man wants to do at the present time is to emphasise—or


over-emphasise—the difficulties and the frustrations that stand in our way, but I do think, in connection with these matters, that when the President of the Board of Trade sets export targets he should, at the same time, describe quite clearly all forms of difficulties, especially those which are not very familiar, that have to be overcome in the attainment of each and every target.

11.18 p.m.

Mr. Osborne: I should like to reinforce what my hon. Friends have said, and especially from this angle. We are being asked in the trade to export, especially to hard currency countries. On many occasions representatives of the Board of Trade have said to us, "We must concentrate on the countries controlled by hard currency." Yesterday the Assistant Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Supply was speaking at Leicester, and he admitted that export targets had been fixed far too high. I understand that the President of the Board of Trade is reconsidering the targets he has fixed; but however they are altered, it will not help the manufacturer nor the worker, both of whom are doing their best, unless the Government will by their own action—which they alone can take—keep open markets where we can sell our goods.

11.19 p.m.

Mr. Spence: I think my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Shephard) has done a great service to trade, and to industry generally, in raising this matter tonight. I am concerned with the export trade, and I can say how fully my own personal experience of the great difficulties we have today bears out what he told us. I should like to put one question to the Minister who is to reply. It affects markets vital to us. We made last year an agreement with the Argentine Government to buy meat for four years. At that time no collateral trade agreement was made. Our meat imports from the Argentine are between 35 million and 40 million tons a year. Surely, there was a market open to our goods that we should have kept open? If we are to take that amount of goods from that country, some sort of goods-for-goods, if not goods-for-cash, arrangement could have been made with that country?
That commercial angle of trade agreements should be reconsidered. So far as

I can see, from research in the Library, that question has not been reopened. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure us on that point. There is a growing bank of goods awaiting export piling up in the factories in this country today, and in certain cases it is assuming alarming proportions. Capital is being tied up and in certain cases that accumulation of goods tends to decrease the incentives for output. It is vital to get these quantities cleared and I cannot too strongly urge the necessity for immediate action by the Government to open overseas markets awaiting our goods.

11.21 p.m.

Major Peter Roberts: I regard what we have heard as the first rumblings of the thunder we are going to hear about export targets in the future. I should like to point out that the root cause of all this is that the ordinary exporter is only prepared to receive in payment for his exports either sterling which other countries have got or dollars. Other countries only have sterling to the extent to which they export to this country, and, therefore, the imports we are cutting down result in cutting down the sterling credits in France, Spain, Belgium, Switzerland and other countries. These countries are decreasing their business because sterling credits are not there for our exporters to receive in payment.
The other alternative which the exporter can accept is francs or pesetas or drachmas or the currency of the country buying our goods, and that is impossible at the present time because of the ridiculous rates of exchange. Francs, for example, are at the rate of 475 to 470 to the £. Their actual value is nearly 900 to the £ and no exporter is prepared to accept francs at 475 when their real value must go up to 900 within two or three years. The only money the exporter can receive is the sterling credits built up in this country.
I think the Parliamentary Secretary and Members on all sides should be thankful that this matter has been raised at this stage. This is only the beginning. It is going to roll on as the months go by, and if the Government cannot state now that they approach the fundamental cause in the question of payment for our exports then I am quite certain the tar-


gets set for this next year will never be reached.

11.23 p.m.

Mr. Bottomley (Secretary for Overseas Trade): First of all, I would like to join in the comments made about the pleasure of listening to the contribution of the opener of the Debate. This is a common aim. We do want to endeavour to get our exports overseas so that the country as a whole will benefit. We are endeavouring to do that. Perhaps I may answer the points made as briefly as I can.
I do not think there are restrictions existing in the way we have been led to believe by comments made. Let us take the primary hard currency markets—Argentina, United States and Canada. In the case of the first, Argentina, we know that they did impose restrictions, as they are still doing. At the present moment there are talks going on as a result of which we hope to break down some of these restrictions. It would be impolitic for me to say anything more at this moment when the talks are going on, but we are in agreement on what we want to do. In regard to the United States there are no restrictions, therefore our manufacturers can get into those markets. You must have the quality and price of goods. Unless you can bargain with them on these terms, then in the ordinary way of business you do not get the orders.

Major Haughton: I do not want to take up time by interrupting but did the hon. Gentleman say there are no restrictions on imports of British merchandise into the United States?

Mr. Bottomley: I was answering the point made by the hon. Member on import licensing; with regard to import licences and restrictions imposed in that way, there are no such difficulties in the United States market. In regard to Canada, the quota limit has been fixed at 400 per cent. of the average trade figures in value for the period 1937–38–39. As far as other hard currency markets, such as Switzerland and Portugal, are concerned, restrictions do not exist. As far as Sweden is concerned, there have been talks, as hon. Members are probably aware, financial talks, and in connection with them we have been trying to drive a bargain

so that some of the existing restrictions shall be removed. We are hopeful that we shall succeed in our endeavours, but for the moment I do not wish to go further than that.

Major Roberts: How are these goods to be paid for? The hon. Member has mentioned Switzerland, for example. How does he suggest that our exports shall receive payment?

Mr. Bottomley: Goods will balance goods. The Latin and Central American countries, as far as the hard currency areas are concerned, are being pressed continually to take textiles. At every opportunity we put on the pressure. We hope that this will help. As to some soft currency countries, such as Norway and Denmark, immediately after the war they had what might be called a honeymoon period, when they took everything. Later, they had to impose restrictions. Whenever we have talks with them, and a bi-lateral agreement comes up, no opportunity is lost to get them to let our goods into their markets.

Mr. Shephard: Will the hon. Gentleman deal with the Colonies?

Mr. Bottomley: Certainly; I will deal with that point now if other hon. Members do not object. The restrictions imposed in the Colonial markets were imposed as a result of the action of His Majesty's Government. This was taken so that goods previously offered to the Colonies could be sent to hard currency areas. I think that is sound business. It is realised that this has been a hardship, and we are looking at the matter again. We hope we shall be able to arrange for entry into these Colonial markets for a limited amount of goods.

Mr. Jennings: Why cannot business people be told more about these things?

Mr. Bottomley: There are contacts through the "Board of Trade Journal," and my colleague behind suggests there are other ways and means in which contact is made between industry and our Export Promotion Department. As far as cotton piece-goods and cotton yarn, and goods of that kind are concerned, there is an unlimited demand. That demand is unsatisfied only since Lancashire cannot, as yet, produce all that is required. Therefore the limitation is at


present the total production of the industry. Lancashire is trying to put that right. Appeals have been made that there should be every endeavour by manufacturers and employees to try and produce more and more. I do not think we shall have any difficulties in that direction, and I believe that exports will rise and that we shall earn more dollars as and when production of some goods is pushed higher.

Mr. Drayson: Is the hon. Member suggesting that dollars are merely dependent on an increase in production?

Mr. Bottomley: Surely the hon. Member knows that if we can sell more of certain goods we can get more collars in return? With regard to other matters which were raised I think I have covered most of the points, unless any hon. Member thinks I have left some out. I believe I have covered the points about the different countries. I would like to say that at the Board of Trade—

Mr. Shephard: I would appreciate it if the hon. Gentleman would say a word about India, and whether it is closed completely.

Mr. Bottomley: I did not hear the hon. Member say that India was completely closed. There have to be limits at present to our trade with India although restrictions will not, obviously, be applied in the same way in all instances. We have to treat the soft currency areas

and the sterling area in a different way from the hard currency areas in order to get raw materials and the food to keep us alive. I think I have covered already the question of the Scandinavian countries; we continually try to persuade them to take our goods. The period after the war, of course, was an exceptional one and they have since had to impose restrictions, but we shall not miss any opportunity of trying to break them down. I would like to say again that I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Shephard) for having raised this question and I hope the answers will help to clarify the matter.

11.32 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: I just rise to say that I am amazed at the horrible complacency which has been shown by the hon. Gentleman who has made the reply to this Debate. In the face of a situation where our export trade is being strangled, and not even strangled slowly but quickly, it is, to say the least, regrettable that a Minister should stand at that Box and show none of the sense of urgency which should actuate him and his Department. If that is the attitude of mind which is to motivate this country in the face of the situation which is now developing, it will not be surprising if this country is in for a very dismal future indeed.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-seven Minutes to Twelve o'Clock.